Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Rates) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered;

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow,

Water Provisional Order Bill,

Read a second time, and committed.

Victoria Infirmary of Glasgow Act 1888 (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill,

"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Victoria Infirmary of Glasgow," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow. Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill,

"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society," presented by MR. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 f the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

POLICE PENSIONERS PRIOR TO 4TH AUGUST, 1914.

Address for Return "showing the age of all pensioners of the various Police authorities in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland under fifty, from fifty to fifty-five, fifty-five to sixty, sixty to sixty-five, sixty-five to seventy, seventy to seventy-five and over, and the rates of pension."—[Colonel Sir James Remnant.]

COAL OUTPUT (WEEKLY STATISTICS).

Return ordered "relating to the weekly output of Coal from coal mines in Great Britain, commencing with the week ended the 31st day of May, 1919."—[Sir Auckland Geddes.]

COAL OUTPUT (MONTHLY STATISTICS).

Return ordered "relating to the output of Coal at coal mines in the United Kingdom during periods of four weeks, commencing with the period ended the 21st day of June, 1919, and to the number of persons employed at the end of those periods in the various districts."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE).

Ordered, That the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the Government of India Bill have leave to sit notwithstanding the adjournment of the House—[Mr. Montagu.]

Ordered, That for the remainder of its sittings three be the quorum of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Montagu.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

EX-OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the number of Regular officers of the Indian
Army who have been discharged as a result of disability due to active service in the War; and for what proportion of these has the Government of India found employment?

The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The number in question is approximately forty. It is not known that the Government of India have found employment for any of these officers, but the majority, if. not all, would be either physically unfit for or not desirous of further employment in India. If there is any discharged officer of whom this is not correct, I should be glad to have my attention called to his case.

Mr. JAMESON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great many jobs going now in Mesopotamia and Palestine where retired Indian officers would be very useful on account of their knowledge of Oriental countries, and that very few of these jobs have been given to such invalided Indian officers, who are generally poor men who have had to live on their pay all their life and who will be very hard hit if they have to live on their pension only?

Mr. MONTAGU: Perhaps the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases in which preference can be given to retired officers of the Indian Army over any others.

PUBLIC SERVICES.

Colonel YATE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the proposals of the Government of India to carry out the recommendations of the Public Services Commission as regards the Indian Forest Service, the Finance Department, and the Indian Educational Service that were under consideration in May last have now been carried into effect; if not, when will they be carried into effect; and whether the proposals of the Government of India regarding the remaining Indian services have now been received and considered?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have now announced a revised ad interim scale of pay for the Indian Education Service and are about to announce a revised scale for the Forest Department. Their proposals for the Finance Department are still under discussion. Last month I received recommendations with regard to a number of other Departments, and recommendations
with regard to most of the remaining Departments are, I understand, on their way home. I propose to deal with all these as expeditiously as possible.

PUNJAB (RIOTS).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table a statement giving the number of Indians killed or wounded in the recent riots in the Punjab and the number of people sentenced by martial- law Courts in the Punjab, together with the sentences imposed upon them within the last three months?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have not yet received a full account of the number of casualties. As regards trials and sentences, I will lay a statement giving total returns, but in many cases sentences are still being revised and reduced.

PRESS ACT (NATIONALIST NEWSPAPERS).

Mr. MACLEAN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if all the newspapers owned or edited by Nationalists in India have had their securities forfeited or in creased or been demanded securities or proceeded against in other ways?

Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir, certainly not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the "Amritsa Bazar Patrika," the "Hindoo," the "New India," the "Independent," and the "Bombay Chronicle" have all lost their securities, and how much has been taken from these newspapers on account of their attitude?

Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. and gallant Friend wants the figures, perhaps he will give me notice. The newspapers to which he refers were proceeded against under the terms of the Press Act.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have not all these newspapers lost their deposits in consequence?

Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot charge myself with remembering the particulars of each case, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend is accurate in saying that they have all suffered under the Press Act.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that practically all the Nationalist newspapers in India have been so treated?

Mr. MONTAGU: If a large number of Nationalist newspapers in India have offended under the Press Act, then they
have been proceeded against. It was not because they were Nationalist newspapers, but because they offended against the provisions of the Press Act.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that the Press Act only affects the Nationalist newspapers?

Mr. MONTAGU: I shall be happy to send my hon. Friend a copy of the Act, and he will see that it applies indiscriminately to all newspapers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How long will the Press Act be continued after India gets Home Rule?

Mr. MACLEAN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of the number of newspapers and presses that have been proceeded against in India under the Press Act and/or the Defence of India Act since the beginning of this year?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will ask the Government of India to supplement the information for which the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) asked on the 22nd July by a Return giving these particulars.

MILITARY OPERATIONS (TRANSPORT AND MEDICAL SERVICES).

Major Earl WINTERTON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps; he is taking to inquire into the allegations regarding transport and medical breakdowns in the Indian Army operations against Afghanistan?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have caused inquiry to be made on every definite allegation that is brought to my notice, and I hope to lay Papers on the Table very shortly dealing with the medical arrangements in the North-West Frontier campaign.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Will the Papers be laid before the rising of the House for the holidays?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know when the House is going to rise, but I want to get out the telegrams that I have received from the Government of India as soon as possible, and I hope to have the Papers ready at the end of this week.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Colonel YATE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received
the deputations of extremists and soidisant moderates in conference at the-India Office; and, if so, will he accord the-same privilege to the members of the non-Brahmin and other deputations now in England?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have done my best to receive and to assist all deputations from India, whatever their views, whenever I have been asked to do so. I will certainly see the non-Brahmins if they ask to see me.

Colonel YATE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what has been the result, of his communication to the Government of India regarding the grant of help to- representatives of rural communities in India to come to England to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill, so as to place the rural communities on an equality with the Brahmin and higher cast communities of the towns?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have not yet received-the views of the Government of India.

Colonel YATE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it was with the advice of his Council that he summoned. Mrs. Besant as a witness to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill?

Mr. MONTAGU: I did not summon Mrs. Besant as a witness before the Joint Committee. I had no power so to summon Mrs. Besant. I have no power so to summon, anybody.

Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the "Life and Activities of Mrs. Besant," published in India?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is; a matter for a. private question in the Lobby.

AFGHANISTAN AND MESOPOTAMIA.

Sir J. D. REES: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any information regarding the peace with, and situation in, Afghanistan, and the proposed future of Mesopotamia, before the House rises for the Recess?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am about to lay Papers regarding Afghanistan. I regret that I am not in a position to make any statements concerning the future of Mesopotamia.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

GENERAL WAR MEDAL (CLASPS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to grant a special medal, or a special bar to the war medal, to the officers and men who have been engaged in the mine-sweeping, anti-submarine patrol, and convoy services, respectively, during the late War?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is not intended to grant a special medal to officers and men who have been engaged in these services during the War. But the question of the award of clasps to the general war medal is being considered.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (MERCHANT SHIPPING REPAIRS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how-many merchant ships and how many ships-of-war are repairing in the naval dockyards in this country; how many merchant ships and how many ships-of-war are repairing in our naval dockyards abroad; how many ships-of-war are repairing in private yards at home and abroad, respectively; and whether, in view of the grave shortage of Merchant shipping and consequent high freights, and in view of our strength and prestige at sea, he will consider cutting down all repairs to our warships, save those required for actual safety, for twelve months or other suitable period?

Dr. MACNAMARA: One merchant ship is being repaired in one of the home dockyards, in addition to twenty-two trawlers and drifters, which are being reconditioned for return to their owners. One hundred and seventeen warships of various kinds are at the present time being repaired in the naval dockyards at home. In addition, fifty-one auxiliary craft—oilers, tugs, and so on, which, though not actually ships-of-war, are necessary for Fleet purposes—are also being repaired. As regards naval dockyards abroad, the latest information is that eleven merchant ships are in hand, of which one is undergoing very large repairs due to explosion damage, and forty-four warships and vessels used for miscellaneous naval purposes.
As regards private yards at home, twenty destroyers and submarines are being repaired in various yards, in addition to
which thirty-five auxiliary craft are undergoing repair in the vicinity of their duties No ships-of-war are being repaired in private yards abroad. The suggestion contained in the last part of the question, and indeed the policy of allowing certain classes of new construction work to stand by for the time being, is before us at this moment. A Committee of the Board, of which I have the honour to be president, has been appointed to examine the whole question of naval expenditure, including the question of the work of the Royal dockyards and manufacturing establishments. Wherever consistent with national security, we can economise effort and divert effort to commercial ends, we shall certainly strongly recommend the policy to the Board.

PRIZE MONEY (DISTRIBUTION).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to when the distribution of prize money to officers and men of the Royal Navy will be begun?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that no date can at present be given for the commencement of distribution. The work of recording and classifying the services of the personnel of the naval forces is proceeding with all expedition, but the amount available for distribution cannot be ascertained definitely until the work of the Prize Courts is nearer completion. In this connection, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by me to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport on the 26th June. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT (STAFF).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of officers and civilians, respectively, employed in the Naval Intelligence Department at the Admiralty on 1st June, 1914; and the number of officers and civilians, respectively, employed in the. Naval Intelligence Department at the Admiralty on 1st August, 19191

Dr. MACNAMARA: The information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend is as follows:

Officers.
Civilians.


1st June, 1914
…
16
…
15


1st August, 1919
…
42
…
120

The increase is due to several new Departments, whose formation was caused by
the War, being incorporated in the Naval Intelligence Department. Their activities still continue. I should add, however, that as in other Admiralty Departments, the numbers of civilian staff ought to show a considerable reduction within a very short time. During the past few months, the numbers have already been reduced in this branch from a total of 380 to the present total of 162.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are further reductions likely?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said there will be a considerable reduction in a short time.

WELFARE COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Welfare Committee when constituted will be set up in the Admiralty or outside; and whether it will be responsible to any particular member of the Board or whether it is intended to create a new Department for this purpose?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The Committee will sit at the Admiralty. It will make its report to the Board of Admiralty and not to any particular member of the Board. No new Department of the Admiralty will be instituted.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 17
asked whether the agenda for the Welfare Committee will be prepared by the Admiralty or left to the Committee?

Mr. LONG: The agenda will consist of the representations put forward by the different classes of ratings; and will not be prepared or in any way altered by the Admiralty.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 18.
asked whether, in view of the provisions of the King's Regulations, it is proposed to draft legislation on the lines of the Police Bill in order to define the work and the constitution of the proposed Welfare Committee?

Mr. LONG: No legislation is necessary for this purpose, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has in view the terms of Article 11 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, I may inform him that a modification of that Article is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 19.
asked whether the chairman or president of the Welfare Committee which it is proposed to set up under Admiralty Weekly Order 737 will be appointed by the Admiralty or whether the election of the chairman will be left to the Committee?

Mr. LONG: As stated in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Order quoted, the officers who sit on the Welfare Committee will be-selected by the Admiralty. The President of the Committee will also be selected by the Admiralty, as provided for in paragraph 4 of the Order in question.

NAVAL CADETS (NEW COLLEGE).

Commander BELLAIRS: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that no Navy Estimates have been submitted, whether the House may have an assurance that no new naval college for naval cadets will be embarked without the proposal first coming before the House?

Mr. LONG: The answer is in the affirmative. The Admiralty does not anticipate that a new college for naval cadets will be required.

KEYHAM COLLEGE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the present accommodation of Keyham College if used for its original purpose of training engineer cadets; and for what purpose it is to be used in the future?

Mr. LONG: The present accommodation of Keyham College, if used for its original purpose, is eighty-one. It is intended to use the college for the training of officers specialising in engineering, and mates (E).

DARTMOUTH AND OSBORNE NAVAL COLLEGES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the buildings of the naval colleges at Dart mouth and Osborne were commenced respectively; and whether he can state the maximum number of cadets that can be accommodated at each, and the total cost of the buildings up to date?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Dartmouth College was commenced in 1898 and can at present accommodate 594 cadets. It cost approximately £532,000. Osborne College was commenced in 1903 and can at present
accommodate 528 cadets. It cost approximately, including hospitals, etc., £198,000. The amounts given in both cases represent all the "works" expenditure which has been incurred to date, including the acquisition of land. In the case of Dartmouth, however, the figure given also includes the outlay on "machinery" up to 1908–9, as the money spent up to, and including, that year was charged to the Naval Works Loan.

ROSYTH GARDEN CITY (RENT STRIKE).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is a rent strike going on at the Rosyth Garden City; and, if so, what is the cause of it and what is being done to bring it to an end?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. We are aware that for some time past a number of the tenants of the Garden City have refused to pay rent until a reduction of 50 per cent. has been granted. The Scottish National Housing Company, which owns the houses, recently came before the Sheriff's Court with a view to securing the eviction of twelve of these tenants. The sheriff granted a decree of ejection against the men, in respect of whom an eviction order had been asked. The sheriff postponed execution until 2nd September, in the hope, no doubt, that an accommodation between the parties might be arrived at.
The cause of the trouble is the allegation that the rents are unduly high. They were carefully considered by the Admiralty, who cannot agree that they are excessive for the accommodation provided. The houses fall into three classes. Those with three rooms are rented at from 6s. 7d. to 7s. 6d. a week, exclusive of rates; those with four rooms, at from 7s. 3d. to 9s. a week, similarly; those with five rooms, at from9s. 2d. to 11s. 3d. a week, similarly. Bathrooms and sculleries are provided in all houses, in addition, and are included in the rent. I ought to add that it has only been possible, having regard to the abnormal cost of labour and materials, to fix these rents with Treasury assistance.

Mr. WALLACE: How do these rents compare with those provided for other dockyard workers?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The houses were built during an abnormal period, and the Treasury bore half the increased cost of
labour and material. Even then, considering the accommodation provided, I think the rents charged are fair and compare very favourably with those charged to other dockyard workers.

BALTIC TRANSPORTS (STEAMSHIP "PRINCESS MARGARET")

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ex-Canadian Pacific Railway liner "Princess Margaret" was purchased this year for approximately £460,000 for use as a minelayer, and extensively re fitted; whether she has been recently used' in the Baltic for tranporting Russian counter-revolutionary troops under Prince Lieven through mined waters; and whether a less expensive vessel can be used for this work?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This vessel was taken on hire in the early days of the War and was then fitted up for mine-laying. She was recently purchased for £425,500, and has also just undergone a small refit. On the occasion of her recent use referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend she followed a route known to be clear of mines, and her use for this service obviated the diversion of a vessel from essential trade, as she was already in the-waters referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

KINGSNORTH (WOMEN DRIVERS).

Mr. JODRELL: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the- growing dissatisfaction among the women drivers at Kingsnorth at their continued retention on service there against their wishes; that there is practically no work to occupy their time; and will he take steps to return them to civil life at an early date and so save considerable sums of public money?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am having inquiries made into the points raised by my hon. Friend, and will communicate with him so soon as possnble.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLSHEVIST CRUISER "OLEG."

Viscount CURZON: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is in a position to give any particulars as to the sinking of the Bolshevist's cruiser "Oleg"?

Mr. LONG: The Bolshevist cruiser "Oleg" was sunk by British naval forces which encountered her when patrolling. It is obviously undesirable to give the exact means by which this was accomplished.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will dispatches be published showing the excellent work of the Royal Navy in the Baltic since the Armistice?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think I can answer that. There are a great many difficulties which I cannot at present measure. I quite agree it is desirable that the splendid work done should be known.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWPORT REPAIRING YARD (STEAMSHIP "MACEDONIA").

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: 28.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the reports that have appeared in the newspapers to the effect that the repairs on the steamship "Macedonia" were too extensive for Newport; whether the delays were due to the inability of the authorities to obtain certain fittings, alterations of plans over which Newport has no control, and labour disputes which were common to all ports; and whether he is aware that the ship-repairing firm in question has repaired7,000 ships of 20,000,000 tons during the war period, and, further than that, repaired 1,000 ships of 3,000,000 tons during the time the "Macedonia" has been in Newport?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the reports alluded to by my hon. Friend, and, as I have already stated in replies which I have already sent him, the repairs were not considered too extensive for the facilities of the port in question. It is also true that the delays in completion are partially due to the inability to obtain certain fittings, to alterations of plans over which the firm had no control, and also to a number of labour disputes which have taken place recently. As regards the last part of the question, dealing with the repair work done by this firm during the war period, it is quite true the firm have done a very great deal indeed, but not quite as much, I think, as suggested in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRINCE CHRISTOPHER OF DENMARK.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Prince Christopher of Denmark, formerly of Greece and brother of ex-King Constantine, is coming to this country; and whether steps can be taken to pre vent London being used as a centre for monarchical intrigue by the refusal of passports to such persons?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Foreign Office take steps to prevent all the brothers of King Constantine coming to this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information to show that one of the first acts of Archduke Joseph's dictatorship in Hungary has been to annul the reforms of Michael Karolyi's Government and to restore the land to the land lords; and, if not, will he obtain information from General Gordon on this point?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir. I have no such information, but I will request the military authorities to call for a Report from General Gordon in accordance with the wish expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the dictatorship of the Archduke Joseph has been recognised either by the Paris Conference or His Majesty's representative in Buda Pesth; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to see that a democratic election is held in that country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No recognition has been granted to either the late or the present Government in Buda Pesth. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I think, agree that it is still too early for me to make any statement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is any Foreign Office representative going to
Buda Pesth to do the work done by General Gordon, or is it being left entirely to the soldiers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no definite statement to make in regard to that, but I will inquire.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOKEIGN OFFICE (TEMPORAEY OFFICE KEEPEES).

Mr. J. JONES: 37.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the rate of pay of temporary office keepers employed in his office is 27s. 6d. per week; whether, when the war bonuses were first given, the rate was raised to 30s., and then afterwards reduced to 27s., with a result that these men have had 4s. 6d. per week less increase in wages than other men employed on similar duties in other Government Departments; whether he proposes to make this loss good to these men; and whether he will look into this matter at once?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The remuneration of unestablished office keepers in the Foreign Office, as in the Civil Service generally, is 27s. (with 25 per cent. of the total number rising by annual increments of 1s. to 30s. 6d.) a week plus full war bonus. In September, 1916, the Foreign Office temporary office keepers received 30s. a week; which was fixed with reference to war conditions and was in excess of the rate paid to other unestablished messengers. In accordance with the usual practice in other similar cases opportunity was taken on the promulgation of the general war bonus awards to adjust the rate so as to bring the total remuneration (pay, plus bonus) of the Foreign Office temporary office keepers into line with that paid to other unestablished messengers in Government service, and since 1st January, 1917, the minimum rate paid has been 27s. plus full war bonus.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-GERMAN WARSHIPS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state whether any decision has been reached as to the disposal of the ex-German ships salved at Scapa Flow and of the ex-German "Goeben"?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the 'House): The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel AMURRAY: 51.
asked. the Prime Minister on what date the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill will be introduced; and on what day its Second Reading stage will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Notice will be given of the Bill to-day, and I hope that it may be possible to take the Second Reading on Friday.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In view of the very short time at the disposal of Scottish Members for consideration of the Bill after it has been printed, will the right hon. Gentleman consider adjourning the Debate, after the Secretary for Scotland has spoken on the Second Reading, to an early date after the Recess, when we shall have been able to consult our Constituents regarding the Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion if it is found impracticable to have the Second Reading in the ordinary way.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DEFINITION ACT (TERMINATION).

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Captain W. BENN:

52. To ask the Prime Minister whether the termination of the War Definition Act will be introduced before the Allied and Associated Powers have ratified the terms of Peace?

Captain BENN: May I say that the words "Orders under" should wine before the words "the Termination."

Mr. BONAR LAW: That alters the question. I do not quite see what my hon. Friend means by Orders under the Act?

Captain BENN: When an. Order will be-made bringing the War officially to an end.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing on that to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on the 6th August. It is settled by Statute. The Government have power to vary the Orders in Council, but only within very narrow limits.

Captain BENN: Will it be necessary to wait for the ratification of Peace by twenty-three belligerents before the War is officially declared to be ended?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a little want of originality in these questions. That is precisely the same question my hon. Friend put to me on the 6th August, which I then answered.

Captain BENN: I apologise for being lacking in originality, but will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I did.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPRENTICES (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether obstacles have been raised by trade unions to the apprenticeship of young men who have been discharged from the Army after serving for four or five years, during which they would have been apprenticed had this not been prevented by military service, and that similar obstacles have been raised by trade unions to their employment in the trade which they propose to follow; and what action he proposes to take in view of this?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: If the hon. Member is referring to the case of men whose apprenticeship was interrupted by military service, there is no difficulty. If, however, he is referring to a scheme under which a number of officers and men of higher educational qualifications are being instructed in different trades and professions, representations have been received from certain trade unions, and are being considered.

Sir H. CRAIK: Seeing that I brought this matter some time ago to the notice of the Ministry of Labour, has no settlement been arrived at which will secure fair justice to these men, who have served their country, but who are prevented by the action of the trade unions from following their livelihood?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I will represent that.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGON-BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. LUNN: 32 and 33.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether the management at Messrs. C. Roberts and Company, wagon
works, Horbury Junction, are seeking to impose different conditions of employment upon their workmen, now on strike, to those which obtain in similar wagon works in the country, and that the industrial reconstruction committee for the industry so far disagreed with the firm's attitude that they refused to discuss the question: what steps are now being taken by the Ministry to bring about a settlement of this dispute;
(2) When the proposed national conference of those engaged in the wagon-building industry is likely to be held?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: Representatives of the trade unions concerned are visiting the Ministry of Labour this afternoon and it is hoped that it will then be possible to make arrangements for national conference.

Mr. LUNN: Is the lion. Gentleman aware that the answer given last Wednesday on this case was incorrect, and that not only had letters been sent, but that I hold the original acknowledgment from the Ministry of such letters?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I am afraid I was not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS-MARTIAL COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the law and procedure of courts-martial; and whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Yes, Sir, the Report has been received, and will be laid before Parliament after it has been considered by the Army Council.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will that be after the Recess?

Mr. FORSTER: I think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS.

TERRITORIAL FORCE.

Major COPE: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has yet come to any decision as to the grant of a special medal
to those officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Territorial Force who volunteered for active service overseas at the outbreak of war?

Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on 29th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham East, in which I stated that the question is still under consideration.

FIRST SEVEN DIVISIONS.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 44 and 62.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1)whether he will consider the desirability of issuing to the first seven divisions a distinctive medal bearing the words Old Contemptible as some acknowledgment of the historic part played by these officers and soldiers in the initial stages of the late War; and
(2) whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a war decoration for officers and soldiers who served in the first seven divisions, for the exceptional service they rendered to the Empire in the initial stages of the late War and notably in the historic retreat from Mons?

Mr. FORSTER: It is not proposed to issue any special medal or decoration in respect of these services other than the "1914 Star," which was granted in recognition of the services rendered by those divisions during the phase of the War in 1914. An Army Order regarding a distinctive mark to be worn on the riband of this Star, for those who served within range of the enemy's mobile artillery, will be published very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

SALVAGE (OVERSEA THEATRES OF WAR).

Major GLYN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister what has been the monthly average sale price since January obtained by the Ministry of Munitions for articles salved from overseas theatres of war, especially France and Belgium; and what has been the approximate cost to the War Office for the same periods in maintaining troops and Chinese labour to salve such material?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. The total sales of material salved from France and Belgium between 11th November, 1918, and 31st March, 1919, amounted to £4,603,766.
Since the latter date the monthly average has been £1,007,764. An answer to the last part of the question is being prepared by the War Office and will be communicated to my hon. and gallant Friend by that Department.

Major GLYN: May that answer be published in the Press, as it is a subject which is causing considerable concern to the officers and men who are being kept in France and cannot be demobilized. who are fully aware that the material they are there to salve can, perfectly well be salved by the French and who believe they are being retained in France when they could be demobilised?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have no control over the Press, who report what they think is of public interest. The amount I have announced shows that it is necessary there should be an organisation to safeguard these stores.

Mr. RENWICK: Has the amount received from salvage exceeded the cost of salving?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot give a definite answer until the information is received from the War Office, but I should say by many millions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFENDERS (AMNESTY).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, now that the Pence has been signed, the Government will favourably consider the question of granting free pardon to all imprisoned offenders against naval and military discipline in respect of minor offences?

Colonel ASHLEY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to recommend to His Majesty an amnesty for all naval, military, and Air Force offenders guilty of purely military crimes due to or arising from the conditions of the War, if they have taken part in active operations overseas, but excluding those guilty of desertion in the face of the enemy or after having boon warned for the trenches for attack, as an act of Royal grace on the ratification of Peace?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to an un-starred question by the hon. and gallant
Member for Central Hull on this subject, and which appears in Hansard of the 5th of June.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable number of soldiers at present undergoing punishment for the offence of communicating with a certain weekly journal, the name of which I shall be pleased to give him?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should not think that that was an offence deserving of very long-continued punishment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL UNREST (OFFICIAL STATEMENTS).

Mr. CLOUGH: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if, during the Recess, he will arrange for the compilation and issue of regular official statements explaining the causes and object s of any case of industrial unrest of primary importance, so that the public may appreciate what are the facts at issue and be able to criticise each development from a well-informed standpoint?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply to this question. It is the practice of the Ministry of Labour to issue official statements about industrial disputes where this course is considered to be desirable, and this practice will be continued during the Recess,

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. GILBERT: 55.
asked the Prime Minister if the Ministry of Reconstruction is still in existence and what duties they are carrying out; and will he state what staff is still employed by this Department and what buildings they at present occupy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The remaining staff of the Ministry of Reconstruction, now numbering sixteen, is engaged in winding up the work of the Ministry, which it is hoped will be completed by 31st August.

Mr. ROSE: Who is Minister of Reconstruction now, and is he receiving a salary?

Mr. BONAR LAW: He is not.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (GLADSTONE COMMITTEE).

Major HILLS: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are now acting on the Report of the Gladstone Committee as to recruiting for the Civil Service?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The attitude of His Majesty's Government is defined by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill, for which, as I said on Monday last, it is possible that time may be found before the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.

Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of moving for a Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to inquire into the circumstances attending the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD GREY OF FALLODEN.

MISSION TO UNITED STATES.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the appointment of a successor to the Earl of Reading as British Ambassador to the United States of America?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Pending the appointment of a permanent Ambassador, which will be made in the early part of next year, Lord Grey of Falloden has consented to go on a mission to Washington to deal especially with questions arising out of the Peace. The House of Commons will, I am sure, share in the warm appreciation which is felt by His Majesty's Government of this patriotic action on the part of Lord Grey, which will, in their opinion, be of the highest value in its influence on the relations between the two Governments and peoples.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot this distinguished statesman be appointed permanently?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think an answer is necessary to that. I need not say the Government would have been only too glad if he could have accepted a permanent post, but everyone who knows
what the disabilities of Lord Grey are will share in the gratitude that the Government feel towards him.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: While heartily joining in the congratulations to the Government on obtaining the services of this distinguished ex-Foreign Minister, may I ask what the instructions of Lord Grey will be to ease the relations between England and the United States in regard to a settlement of the Irish question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite certain Lord Grey will do all in his power to improve in every respect, where improvement is necessary, the relations between America and the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALLEN SOLDIERS.

PEEMANENT CENOTAPH IN WHITEHALL.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 59.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government have yet decided to erect a permanent memorial to the fallen in the War; and, if so, what form is it going to take and where is it going to be erected?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The only memorial which the Government have as yet decided to erect is the reproduction in permanent material of the cenotaph in Whitehall on its present site.

Mr. SUGDEN: Will some representation of a Christian character be placed on the proposed monument?

Lieut-Colonel RAW: 91.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the advisability of erecting the permanent memorial to "Our Glorious Dead" on a site in Parliament Square on account of the danger to the public in having such a memorial in a crowded and busy thoroughfare?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): As the Government have already decided to reproduce the cenotaph in permanent material on the same site, the answer to this question is in the negative; but I may add that the question of public safety has already been considered in conjunction with the Commissioner of Police, and no danger to the public is anticipated. The Westminster City Council have, I understand, also agreed not to oppose the Government decision.

Major BIRCHALL: 95.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in the event of the cenotaph becoming the model of a permanent memorial, steps will be taken to secure that a Christian inscription shall find a place thereon?

Sir A. MOND: The Government propose to reproduce the existing temporary cenotaph in all respects in permanent form, but if the hon. Member has any suggestion to make with regard to the inscription it will, of course, receive careful consideration.

Mr. J. F. GREEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a great pity, seeing the large number of Mussulmans, Indians, and Jewish soldiers who have lost their lives as well as Christian soldiers, that regard should not be had to that fact?

Sir A. MOND: No doubt that question will be considered.

Major JAMESON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the subject of the pronoun "our"? It is a small matter but worthy of consideration.

Sir A. MOND: I will be glad to consider every suggestion, of which I receive a great many every day.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that war has nothing whatever to do with Christianity?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (LEADERSHIP OF HOUSE).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 61.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether an opportunity can be given before the Recess to discuss whether the ancient constitutional practice of the Prime Minister, when a Member of the House of Commons, leading the House should be resumed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what was said by the Prime Minister on this subject on the 7th August.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is not the Executive responsible to Parliament, and is it not extremely difficult to maintain Parliamentary control over the Executive when the head of the Executive so rarely comes to this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That seems to me a very academic question. The House of
Commons has complete control over the Executive, and it has control over the head of the Executive by declining to do something which he desires.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I shall raise this question when Parliament reassembles in the autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY TRANSPORT OFFICERS.

Mr. SPEAKER: Captain Wedgwood Benn.

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: I have a question—No. 63.

Mr. SPEAKER: I called on the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Sir J. REMNANT: I did not hear you, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: I called on the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but he was engaged in conversation, and he did not rise.

Sir J. REMNANT: I never heard it. The last thing I heard was the hon. Member (Mr. Locker-Lampson) saying he would raise his question in the autumn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should keep his eye on the Paper. Would he like to ask his question now?

Sir J. REMNANT: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for War if instructions can now be given to transfer the work of the railway transport officers, at present attached to the railways in this country, to the permanent officials of the railway companies, and so save money for the Exchequer?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): Reductions in the railway transport staff in this country have been, and are being effected, but it is not possible at present to dispense entirely with these officers. Military traffic is still very heavy, and many of the duties which are carried out by railway transport officers could not be undertaken by railway officials.

Sir J. REMNANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many transport officers attached to the London termini are so busy that they are able to spend three days and three nights at home?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not know that, and I should be very glad to have any facts at my hon. and gallant Friend's disposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSORSHIP.

Captain W. BENN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the censorship exists in Ireland or on communications from Ireland to England?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no censorship in this country on postal or telegraphic communications to or from Ireland. The first part of the question is for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (NON-COMBATANT CORPS).

Mr. INSKIP: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Non-Combatant Corps still contains a number of conscientious objectors who were prepared to accept the obligation of national service; and whether, in view of the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 4th August that there are no conscientious objectors in prison or under control, directions can now be given for the immediate discharge of all such persons from the Non-Combatant Corps in order that they may be treated as well as the conscientious objectors who refused any national service?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Non-Combatant Corps is, and always has been, entirely composed of men whose conscience permits them to serve as British soldiers, though it dos not permit them to take human life, and who have been granted non-combatant exemption by the tribunals. The Corps was set up by Royal Warrant, and its members are just as much soldiers as, for example, members of the Army Pay Corps, Royal Army Veterinary Corps, and Royal Army Medical Corps, from the point of view of the Army, therefore, these men must be regarded as soldiers, and not as conscientious objectors, and there is no more case for their special discharge than there is for the special discharge of any other serving soldiers.

Mr. INSKIP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every one of these men holds a certificate granted to him describing him as a conscientious objector? Having been described as such are they not
entitled to better treatment than rebellious persons who have been released from gaol?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. It is one thing at this stage in our affairs to let a conscientious objector out of gaol after he has done a long period of very rigorous punishment, and it is quite another thing to give an actual preference to persons professing these views in regard to other men serving in the same corps.

Mr. INSKIP: Is it not a fact that these men are receiving worse treatment than the men who have been released from gaol?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not admit for a moment that service in the Non-Combatant Corps alongside of other men is any worse treatment than that to which the enormous majority of men now serving in the Army are subjected, and it bears no comparison at all with imprisonment with hard labour.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Now that we are all trying to be economical would it not be possible to discharge these men from service when they are simply a burden on the country's finance?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not agree at all. If it is a question of the abolition of the Non-Combatant Corps that is a matter which must be considered as a whole and in its proper place. If it is a question of allowing men who are conscientious objectors serving in the Non-Combatant Corps to have a preference over other men in the Non-Combatant Corps, that would be an act of injustice.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As these people are rendering no service, and not adding to the security of the country in the way ordinary soldiers are, why should we continue the upkeep of all these regiments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to give that privilege to these men. I do not agree that we have given any privilege to the conscientious objectors who are released from gaol. They are being released after very severe suffering.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIGNAL SERVICE (EGYPT).

Mr. SEXTON: 67.
asked the Secretary for War whether the Signal establishment
in Egypt is being maintained on a war footing; whether, in the interests of national economy, it is now possible for the Egyptian State telegraph service to handle the military work now dealt with over the land lines; whether the wireless installation is capable of dealing with all the military work in any emergency; and whether, in view of the fact that the average number of messages per operator on the land lines has fallen to one-third of the January, 1919, figures, he will cause immediate inquiry to be made as to the reasons for the maintenance of the existing establishment?

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, on the 12th ultimo, there were ninety signallers attached to the offices at general headquarters, Cairo, Kantara, and Alexandria; whether the average number of messages per man per day was sixteen; whether since that date, despite demobilisation, the reduction in traffic has continued; and whether he will arrange for the transmission of War Office messages by the normal civilian staff?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer at the same time question No. 71. The Signal units in Egypt have been reduced as far as possible, and have, in addition, been diluted with Indian personnel. At the present time they are very much under establishment owing to the fact that a large proportion of their personnel has been demobilised, and there is difficulty in finding personnel to send out in replacement. The General Office Commanding-in-Chief in Egypt is being asked as to the possibility of manning the land lines by Egyptian civilians, and I will write to my hon. Friend on this point when a reply is received. I am afraid, however, there is no immediate likelihood of this suggestion being practicable. As regards the third part of the question, I am informed that, although the wireless installation may be capable of dealing with the most urgent military work in an emergency, it would by no means carry all the traffic, and there would be very considerable delay. With regard to the last part of the question, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief is taking all possible steps to reduce the number of Signal personnel employed, and a large reduction has already been effected.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men are being kept there simply in order to serve the officers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is touched upon in the next question.

Mr. SEXTON: 68.
asked the Secretary for War whether it is to the personal financial interest of Signal officers in Egypt to maintain their establishments at the maximum strength; and whether, as it is not desirable that public interest should be subordinated to the individual interests of subordinate officers, he will personally investigate the whole problem, with a view to large economies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The system by which all establishments are scrutinised by the responsible commander on the spot and again scrutinised by the War Office before receiving approval does not admit of officers commanding units maintaining extravagant establishments for their own financial interest. I can assure my hon. Friend that subordinate officers have not the power of deciding their own establishments. If, however, he or my hon. Friend (Mr. Hailwood) has any special information on the subject I should be glad if he would let me have it to inquire into.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 72.
asked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that certain signallers at Cairo have been informed that, despite the repeated statements of the War Office representatives in the House of Commons, the regulations with regard to the release of all demobilisers and pivotal men who were applied for during January, 1919, have been cancelled; and whether, having regard to the increasing dissatisfaction, he will cause immediate inquiries to be made?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware that the men referred to by my hon. Friend have been so informed. The regulations regarding the release of pivotal men and demobilisers who were registered as such by the War Office prior to 1st February, 1919, are still in force, but it would appear that the men in question arc confusing pivotal men and demobilisers with slip men and contract men. The mere fact that the latter have received contractoffers of employment such as to obtain their registration as slip men does not entitle them to immediate release, but gives them a certain priority only, if otherwise eligible for demobilisation. In the circumstances no special inquiries appear to be called for.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS (FRANCE AND BELGIUM).

Major GLYN: 69.
asked how many officers and men are being employed at present in France and Belgium for salving war material, and how many are engaged in remaking and repairing roads and rail ways in those countries?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am having inquiry made and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRAINING OF RUSSIAN OFFICERS (NEWMARKET CAMP).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 70.
asked how many Russian officers are being trained at the Newmarket camp; whether there are any other camps for similar purposes in this country; the weekly cost of such camps; and whether a certain number of these officers and their wives have been arrested; and, if so, what is the charge?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are 1,200 Russian officers being trained at Newmarket, but not all simultaneously, and at present there are 565 in the camp. No-other similar camps exist in the country. The weekly cost of the camp (including the camp staff) is approximately £4 5s. per officer inclusive of their pay at £2 10s. per week with rations. Ten Russians, including one woman, have been arrested on a charge of conspiracy in Bolshevik interests and interfering with the discipline and orderly conduct of the camp. The charge was preferred by other-Russians in the camp and is being carefully investigated.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: Has any authorisation been given to the right hon. Gentleman to use British money for the training of Russian officers to fight against their own people?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly; the Cabinet authorised this expenditure in the ordinary course, subject, of course, to a Vote of Parliament, and we are training these officers in order that they may be able to take charge of Russian troops in those areas over which we have responsibility, and thus enable us to leave those areas.

Captain W. BENN: Is the British taxpayer asked to pay the cost of training a Russian Army to be used against the Russian Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The British taxpayer is training these officers—who have been released from prison camps in Germany, where they have suffered a great deal—and restoring them so that they may go to take over the command of Russian troops who are fighting in areas where our troops are at present involved, and from which we intend to withdraw our troops.

Captain BENN: Has an Estimate for this service in detail been laid before this House, and when?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; but I think it is covered in the General Vote. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any doubt as to what the opinion of the House would be were such an Estimate put specifically before them, he will, perhaps, take some opportunity of challenging it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to consider the opinion of the country on this matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government is as good a judge of the opinion of the country as the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have not time for these personal altercations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CELEBRATIONS, LONDON (DECORATIONS FOR OFFICERS).

Major MORRISON-BELL: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, after the Peace celebrations last month, several Foreign Powers offered decorations for those officers who had helped to organise and who commanded and staffed the various camps in Hyde Park and elsewhere; and whether these decorations were all allotted to officers of the War Office Staff and none to the regimental officers who actually ran the camps?

Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as I am aware, the answer to the first part of my lion, and gallant Friend's question is in the negative, and the latter part does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE STAFF.

Major MORRISON-BELL: 74.
asked the Secretary for War how many officers who are non-Regulars are now employed on the War Office Staff; and whether, in the interests of public economy, he will see his way to have all such officers demobilised at an early date, and their places filled by Regular officers where it is not possible to abolish the appointments altogether?

Mr. FORSTER: The figures required in the first part of my hon. Friend's question arc not readily available, but the number of temporary officers employed in the War Office is constantly decreasing. The substitution of Regular for temporary officers would not necessarily achieve the purpose which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, as officers holding such appointments are supernumerary to regimental establishments. As regards the abolition of the appointments, I can assure him that the possibility of reducing the establishment is constantly before the Army Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIMBER SUPPLIES.

Major LLOYD GREAME: 75.
asked the Secretary for War what stocks of timber are held in reserve by the War Office; and what steps he proposes to take to make these stocks available for civilian purposes?

Mr. FORSTER: All surplus stocks both at home and in France have been declared to the Surplus Disposal Board for disposal.

Major GREAME: Can the right lion. Gentleman state the amount available for disposal in that way?

Mr. FORSTER: I will have the figures got out and sent to the hon. Member, or if he will put down a question I will give-him the information in that way. I cannot give them at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS CLOTHING STOCKS (WAR OFFICE).

Major GREAME: 76.
asked the Secretary for War the amount of cloth held in reserve stocks by the War Office; and what steps he proposes to take to put this cloth on the market in order to reduce the cost of civilian clothing?

Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question on this subject put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs. I understand that there is some misapprehension as to the meaning of the word "tartan" as applied to cloth for trousers included in the figures which I gave yesterday. I may explain that it is a technical term for a particular material, and has no reference to the colour or colours which the cloth may assume either during or after manufacture. It may surprise my hon. Friend and other Scottish Members, but perhaps it will relieve their anxiety if I point by way of illustration to the trousers I happen to be wearing, which are made of tartan.

Dr. MURRAY: Has the War Office adopted the name of "tartan"?

Mr. FORSTER: It is not the War Office; it is a manufacturer's term.

Dr. MURRAY: The War Office should protect the tartan.

Major GREAME: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's, supplementary explanation that his trousers will be placed at the disposal of the Disposal Board?

Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that is an impossibility. My hon. and gallant Friend has repeatedly in the course of his distinguished military service worn tartan trousers, though he does not appear to Lave known it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAY.

Mr. RENDALL: 81.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can yet give an answer to the request to permit Messrs. John Arnold and Sons, of Wick war, to obtain hay in this district, which the War Office have hitherto refused to release; and is he aware of the serious consequences of his Department's neglect to attend to this matter?

Mr. FORSTER: I understand the position to be that the Department holds certain stocks of last year's hay bought for Army use at rates considerably lower than those now prevailing for hay of 1919 crop, and that Messrs. Arnold and Sons wish to have some of this Government hay released to them at the controlled price because they are unwilling to pay the pre-
sent uncontrolled price for this year's hay. I would point out to my hon. Friend that this would involve loss to the public, as the hay is required for the Army, and any hay so released to individuals would have to be replaced at current prices. I do not think this is a proposal which would commend itself either to my hon. Friend or to the House generally.

Mr. CROOKS: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received any representations in favour of instituting control, both as regards price and distribution, of the 1919 hay crop; whether he is aware that prices are rising daily and that in absence of any restrictions no effort is being made to conserve this supply; and whether this matter will be considered?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. I have received many representations both for and against the control of the 1919 hay crop. I am aware that 1919 hay is being sold at prices considerably in excess of the fixed prices for last year's hay. The question of what, if any, action should be taken by the Government is receiving careful consideration.

Major WHELER: 87.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will make a statement as to the Government policy as to control of hay of the 1919 crop before the House of Commons rises for the Recess?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce positively the policy of the Government in regard to this matter. On the negative side I am in a position to say that at present the Government has no intention of commandeering hay.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF AGHICULTURE.

Captain TERRELL: 83.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what steps have now been taken with the reconstruction of the Board of Agriculture; and what steps still remain to be taken?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The Bill for the reconstruction of the Board is at present before the House.

Captain TERRELL: When will the Bill be taken?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Shortly after the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Captain TERRELL: 34.
asked whether any definite date has yet been fixed for the presentation of the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Royal Commission on Agriculture has been asked to present an Interim Report by the 30th September next.

Captain TERRELL: Are they still con-ducting their deliberations in secret?

Oral Answers to Questions — CEREALS (REMUNERATIVE PRICE)

Mr. TOWNLEY: 85.
asked whether the Government will now give a guarantee that farmers shall receive a remunerative price for their cereal crops harvested in 1920?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In reply to my hon. Friend I am informed that the Prime Minister will make a statement on this subject in the House of Commons before the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORDSON TRACTORS.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: 86.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the large number of Fordson tractors which farmers have bought from the Government under strong encouragement by the Government and large profits to the public funds; whether satisfactory arrangements have been made for the supply of spare parts necessary for immediate repair; whether he is aware that farmers have been seriously inconvenienced by lack of facilities for obtaining spare parts, and the use of the tractors and the culture of the land seriously delayed in consequence; and whether he will state what steps have been taken to make the supply of spare parts readily available to farmers throughout the country, more especially in view of the urgency of the harvest?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are aware that there has been difficulty in obtaining spare parts for Fordson tractors, and have been in constant communication with Messrs. Ford upon the subject. The whole stock of spare parts originally held by the Board has been made available for distribution through the trade. Messrs. Ford state that they are importing large stocks of spare parts, most of which have already arrived in this country, but they have been hampered by shipping and other difficulties. The situation has materially improved during the last few weeks, and the Board hope that very shortly the position will be normal.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the difficulty is one which is felt seriously by farmers throughout the country, and that the harvest will be seriously jeopardised unless this state of things is brought to an end, and will the Department act energetically as regards the distribution of these spare parts as widely and as quickly as possible?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes. We are acting energetically.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING (ANIMAL AND POULTRY FOOD).

Mr. FOREMAN: 88.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the profiteering which is being carried on in the sale of food of all kinds for animals and poultry; and whether he will obtain detailed reports, if necessary, with a view to taking action?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply. An Order prohibiting dealings in cattle cakes and meals except under licence will shortly be issued. One of the conditions of the licence will be that cakes and meals shall be sold at prices agreed by the Ministry of Food.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (COMMANDEERED PREMISES).

Captain TERRELL: 89.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state what action he is taking, by way of representation or otherwise, to reduce the number of commandeered premises held by the various Government Departments?

Sir A. MOND: A special staff is engaged upon the question of releasing all requisitioned premises, and continual inquiries are being made to secure that the premises are being adequately utilised. Representations are at once made to the Departments concerned in every case in which a possibility of release arises. The number of premises occupied naturally depends upon the number of the staff employed in each case, and the reductions in staffs have hitherto not been as rapid as was anticipated. As reductions in the staff occupying two or more premises take place, steps are at once taken for amalgamating the remaining staffs in fewer buildings, in order to effect releases, and where that course can be justified even hirings by agreement are effected. I may add that a large number of requisitioned premises have already been released since the date of Armistice.

Mr. KILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of using the Crystal Palace for the transfer of many of these Departments?

Sir A. MOND: Yes. The Crystal Palace is being used.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAMPTON COURT PALACE.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 90.
asked whether any alterations are in process of being carried out within the gardens of Hampton Court Palace; and, if so, what is their nature?

Sir A. MOND: No alterations are being made for the moment in the gardens at Hampton Court. The recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the whole question will be carried out this autumn as far as labour and funds allow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: 93.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the constantly increasing strain on the resources of the House of Commons kitchen, he will instal during the approaching Recess the new cooking apparatus purchased in 1915, and the new service lifts for which provision was made in the Estimates of 1914–15 and 1915–16?

Sir A. MOND: To instal a new cooking apparatus requires a large amount of
structural alterations which cannot be carried out in the coming Recess. The installation is part of a much larger scheme which was stopped owing to the War, and which must be reconsidered under present conditions. The same consideration applies to the second part of the question, but the existing lifts will be overhauled during the Recess to render them more, efficient.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSEUMS AND PICTURE GALLERIES.

Mr. GILBERT: 94.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how many museums and picture galleries under the control of his Department in London are still closed and in the occupation of other Government Departments; if he will give the names of such buildings; and if he can give any approximate dates when these public buildings will again be open free to the public?

Sir A. MOND: There are only three such buildings, namely, the National Portrait Gallery, the National Gallery of British Art, and the Wallace Collection. It is hoped that they will be vacated within the next three months.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIVERPOOL POLTCK STRIKE.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he was aware that the dismissed policemen in Liverpool have been refused the pay earned up to the date of their dismissal, whereas the London police have received theirs, and whether he will take action to see that the money is paid to them forthwith, seeing that some of them are in a state approaching starvation?

Mr. SHORTT: I am informed that the Liverpool police authorities are advised that the provisions of Section 4 of the County and Borough Police Act, 1859, prevents them paying any arrears of pay to the men concerned. I will go into the matter further and communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANS-CAUCASIA (BRITISH FORCES).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I desire to put to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice. as a matter of special urgency
Whether the British forces in Trans-Caucasia are to be withdrawn immediately, and, if so, whether any arrangements have been or can be made to prevent Woodshed among the different races inhabiting that region; whether the has information that the Kurds, Tartars, Turks, and Georgians are attacking, or preparing to attack, the Armenian Republic of Erivan, and, if so, whether the Armenians, having been our friends in the late War, will be rendered any assistance or left to their fate; further, whether the Italian Government has withdrawn its promise to send troops to Armenia to prevent massacre after the withdrawal of British troops; whether the Government of the United States has accepted a mandate for that region, and, if not, what steps have been taken to bridge the interval between the withdrawal of our troops and the establishment of some other separate government in the country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend gave me notice of this question only since the House assembled, and I have, therefore, not been able to refresh my memory in regard to all the questions. I can, however, assure him that this very important matter is under the immediate consideration of the Peace Conference at Paris.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will communicate to the Powers in Paris what I think would be the universal feeling of horror excited if the Armenians, who have already lost 1,000,000 people in this War by massacre, be handed over once more without protection, to the same people who were guilty of those foul and wholesale massacres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will certainly convey that message to our representatives in Paris.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is this not a case where the League of Nations ought to act in a prompt manner to safeguard the people in Armenia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should not like to give an answer off-hand to that question.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have any hope of anything being done to relieve these unhappy people, and whether our obligations to the Armenians are not at least as strong as those to General Denikin?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am sure that all those considerations are in the mind of the Government.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: The Armenians are not aristocrats.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: With regard to the notice suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night will the Leader of the House say to what hour he proposes to sit? After one or half-past One o'clock it is almost impossible to get any means of conveyance.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should not like to name an hour. The right hon. Gentleman must know quite well that the business has got to be done before we adjourn, and I think that we must wait and have regard to -what happens.

Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give time for a discussion on the Motion which stands in my name, which seeks to record the thanks of the House of Commons to our Prime Minister for his invaluable services during the War and at the Peace Conference?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. Apart from any other reason I may say that I called the attention of my right hon. Friend to the notice on the Paper, and it is his desire that no such step should be taken. In these circumstances I do not think it wise to discuss the Motion.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Does my right hon. Friend think it desirable or necessary to rush through the Committee stage of the Profiteering Bill, to which there are eleven pages of Amendments, in the small hours of the morning, seeing that it is a measure which affects the interests of every person in this country, in order to allow us to get away one day earlier?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it desirable, but I think that it may be necessary.

Lord HUGH CECIL: When the right hon. Gentleman says the business must be done "which business does he mean?

Mr. BONAR LAW: To-day we hope—and we will do what we can to realise that hope—to make sure of the first two Orders

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business it proposed to take to-morrow?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It must be dependent on what happens to-day. We propose to take to-morrow the Report and Third Reading of the Profiteering Bill, the Lords Amendments to the Acquisition of Land Bill and other Bills, and, if there be time, the Sex Disqualification Bill.

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to take, this side of the Recess, the Chief Secretary's magnum opus—the Bill to increase the Dog Tax in Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No.

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask, then, whether it is intended to take the Rats Bill to-night, and, if so, what Minister will be in charge of it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Ordered,
That Government business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lords].

Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Animals (Anæsthetics) Bill,
Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Huddersfield Corporation Gas Bill [Lords],
Dover Gas Bill [Lords],
Pembroke Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Ardrossan Harbour." [Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Fraserburgh Harbour." [Fraserburgh Harbour (Rates) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Peterhead Harbours." [Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

ANIMALS (ANESTHETICS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the first time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

Fraserburgh Harbour (Rates) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords'],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE E.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Comittee E: Mr. Leslie Scott; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Remer.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — PROFITEERING BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[ME. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of the Board of Trade to Investigate Complaints and Take Proceedings).

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board of Trade shall have power in respect of any article to which this Act applies—

(a)to investigate prices, costs, and profit, and for that purpose by order to require any person to appear before them, and to furnish such information and produce such documents as they may require; and 
(b) to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being or has been made or sought on the sale of the article (whether wholesale or retail) which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and on any such complaint they may by order, after hearing the parties,—

(i) declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; and
(ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price; or
(iii) require the complainant to purchase the article at such price;

or may, in lieu of making such order, where they think the circumstances of the case so require, take proceedings against the seller before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the price charged or demanded by the seller is such as to yield to him a profit which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

(3) If any person fails to comply with an Order of the board of Trade under this Section, the shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine nut exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

(4) Where a person convicted under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence, unless lie proves that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and consent.

(5) This Act applies to any article or class of articles to which it is applied by Order of the Board of Trade, being an article or class of articles declared by the Order to be one or one of a kind in common use by the majority of the population, but this Act does not apply to any articles which are from time to time declared to be controlled articles.

(6) In this Act the expressions "sale" and "seller" include respectively any offer for sale and any person offering to sell.

Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "the Board of Trade shall have power," and to insert instead thereof the words "it shall be the duty of tribunals established under this Act."
I should like, if I may, to explain the object I have in view in moving this Amendment. As I said on the Second Heading, I want to assist in securing the objects which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, but I submitted then, and I submit now, that this Bill will be ineffective for that purpose—that in reality it is a sham, and that I want to take some part, as for as is possible, in helping to make it a reality. I am not wedded in any way to the terms of the Amendment, and if another Amendment will achieve better the end in view I will certainly withdraw my Amendment. What I submit is that if this Bill is to be effective the tribunal or committee, or whatever body it is which is called upon to make these investigations in the first instance, must be a committee which is independent on the one hand, and must conduct its investigations in public on the other hand, and that only by such means can we possibly secure satisfaction to the country. If this committee is not an impartial committee, if it is not conducted on lines that the public understand, it can never give that satisfaction to the country which I want to assist the right hon. Gentleman in securing. That is why I have moved this Amendment. I recognise the difficulty of carrying out what is suggested, but the point before us is to secure the confidence of the country in any bodies or tribunals we set up, and I submit that any tribunal of that kind should be independent of, and superior to, not only all interests, great or small, or combinations of interests, but should be such as to bring out all the facts, no matter whom they affect, so that the public may know that the committee is acting impartially. The terms of the Preamble are very significant. They relate to any articles the prices of which are enhanced by charges yielding an unreasonable profit.
I will ask my right hon. Friend opposite whether, if n complaint is subsequently made, it will come within the terms of the Act? I base that upon a statement contained in an article recently published by Lord Emmott. He is a well-known and highly respected man, who took part in a very important Committee set up by the Board of Trade—I believe by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The proceedings of that Committee were private. We know nothing of them except by the casual reports we have gleaned in various ways. We do not know what the effect produced has been; we have them disclosed to a slight extent by this state-
ment, and I am going to venture, by leave of the Committee, to quote one short passage. Lord Emmott says:
I was a member of that Committee. One day this Committee decided that all restrictions on imports of paper and paper material should be removed on the ground that the people who benefited by cheaper paper were more numerous and important than the few thousand who were represented in the manufacture of paper. The moment steps were taken to give effect to this decision the manufacturers were up in arms, and the Board of Trade quailed, and with Sir Auckland Geddes acquiesced. That is why—
and this is the point of my question—
all things made of paper are unnecessarily dear to-day.
4.0.P.M.
The condition of things is such that we want to inquire into all the circumstances attending the cost of the articles of ordinary consumption. Here is one rather important item where, by reason of the course adopted, prices are unnecessarily high to-day. In the investigations that are going to be made will we have it disclosed to the public what the effect of those restrictions have been, and how much the cost of paper—using that as an illustration—has been enhanced by reason of the restrictions; and will the inquiry be such that everything will be taken into consideration so that the people may regard it as impartial, and so that confidence can be placed in its findings? I do not desire to labour the point which I have indicated. I have a sincere desire to make this Bill effective, if it is possible, and I do not think it will be effective unless we have impartial tribunals, and it is in that spirit that I beg to move.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I should like first to acknowledge my full appreciation of what the hon. Gentleman has said, that it is his desire to make this Bill as effective and as useful as it is possible to make it. I have been much interested by this Amendment, and by nine other Amendments which follow in the name of the hon. Gentleman, and which seem to form a continuous whole. This Amendment is designed to remove any responsibility from the Board of Trade. If one might speak purely from a personal point of view, I would not be slow to welcome it, but I do not know that it is quite possible, from an administrative point of view. Let us see what follows. There are three subsequent Amendments which reduce the function of the Board of Trade to the appointment of tribunals, and there are further Amendments the effect of
which would be—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I misunderstood him—that the Government, as such, should wash its hands of all interest in the tribunals it is proposed to establish, and that there should be no Minister responsible to Parliament in any way for the action of those tribunals. That, so far as I can understand, is the meaning of the series of Amendments. There would be no Minister of the Crown responsible, and there- would not be, in the ordinary sense, any direct control by Parliament. There are some further Amendments to Clause 6standing in the name of the same hon. Gentleman which have the effect, as I understand them, of allowing the expenses of establishing tribunals to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament and the expenses of local tribunals. That would lead to this position—that the expenses neither of the central tribunal nor of the appeal tribunal could be paid out of those funds. The effect of all the Amendments would be that there would be no Minister responsible for the administration of this Act, and that the tribunals would not owe allegiance, after the moment of birth, to any Government Department, and they would be entirely independent and under no direct control, and that the central and other tribunals should receive financial assistance from public funds. I do not think myself such a proposition would be administratively possible or could be accepted by the House. Therefore, I feel that I may have misunderstood the effect of the sequence of the ten Amendments. There is no doubt whatever that, if they wore adopted as they stand, there would be no Minister responsible except for the appointment of the tribunals.
With regard to the further point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and which I understood to be that the tribunals should be free to publish all information obtained, that is obviously a very difficult point which we must consider more fully a little later. I am quite clear in my own mind that there must be some investigation, which can only be made effective if there is no publicity, unless the result of the investigation shows such a state of affairs to exist as to make prosecution necessary. It is quite clear such investigations as we require into the whole process of manufacture and production of goods cannot take the form really of tribunal investigation if such investigations are to satisfactorily get at the facts. Much more, what is wanted in those cases
is a purely and absolutely confidential investigation, so that the real position may be explored, and become known in a confidential manner to the authority, whatever it may be. With regard to the question of publicity, where there is a prosecution, that, of course, would be absolute, and where a complaint was made and a decision arrived at there would be publicity, and I would be prepared to see how I could meet my hon. Friend in giving greater publicity on such points. That lies beyond the scope of the present Amendment, so far as I have been able to understand it.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: On a point of Order. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has just said that the point which he was reaching would be outside the scope of this Amendment. Would it not be in order, and I suggest for the convenience of the Committee, if the right hon. Gentleman stated now to the Committee what his plans were for working these bodies. It would be a great convenience to the Committee to know at the outset what his intentions were, and then the subsequent Amendments could be disposed of either by way of agreement or disagreement.

The CHAIRMAN: A suggestion of that kind might lead to a complete Second Reading Debate on the Bill. This Amendment, in terms, merely places the duty on local tribunals instead of on the Board of Trade. I think the right hon. Gentleman might assist the Committee by referring generally to the functions of those tribunals.

Sir A. GEDDES: In view of what you, Sir, have said, I shall be very pleased to give a short and brief statement of what I conceive to be the administration of this Bill, if it becomes law, without attempting to go into the whole question completely, because that would take too long. My conception of the machinery which would be set up under this Bill is this. The Board of Trade should appoint a large central tribunal, which I described when I appeared before the Select Committee in words which have been repeated almost exactly in the new Clause (Operations of Trusts), which stands in the name of one of the Whips of the Labour party—
There shall be established a tribunal consisting of a person of legal qualifications as permanent chairman, and not less than two or more than seven other members selected by him from time to time from a panel appointed for
the purpose by the President of the Board of Trade, after considering nominations made by representative trade organisations, including the co-operative movement and trade unions.
That central panel should contain on it persons of expert knowledge in manufacturing processes and in the wholesale and distributing branches of business. That tribunal should have entrusted to it the confidential central investigation with regard to the larger questions, and those investigations should not be carried out in the way that a tribunal sitting to judge a case carries out its work. That investigation should be carried out in co-operation with people whose business was being investigated. We are assured by many people that we would get great help in carrying out such investigations so long as they were confidential. Those investigations would be extremely valuable, and would form a central body of information which would be, through the Board of Trade, at the disposal of the State, if not in detail, in general. In addition, and quite separate from that, we should have local bodies, a committee or tribunal to which individuals who feel themselves aggrieved by prices charged, may appeal, and have the case investigated, and that both these local bodies and the appeal bodies, and the central body, should, if they find any glaring, obvious case of persistent and pernicious profiteering, have the power of prosecuting. That is the conception.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Would the local bodies have the power of prosecution?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, they would have the power of prosecuting, but not, of course, of judging—that is to say, they would have the power of taking a case to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in order that it might be dealt with there. If there was an appeal and the Appeal Tribunal believed that the case was one of pernicious profiteering, then it would become the prosecuting authority.

Sir W. PEARCE: Would the prosecution be on their own initiative, without reference to the Board of Trade, and who would pay for the prosecution?

Sir A. GEDDES: The prosecution would be under the authority of the Board of Trade. It would be, in fact and in form, on the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade that the prosecution would be carried out.

Sir W. PEARCE: There would be the authorisation of the Board of Trade behind them?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, that is the position in. the Bill as it stands, but in the case of the small local cases the Board of Trade itself, as such, of course, would be relying upon the investigations made locally.

Mr. JONES: I take it that the local authority would not institute the prosecution until it had the authorisation of the Board of Trade?

Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, no! My hon. Friend has not followed what I have said. I must try and be clearer. The Board of Trade, under the Bill as drafted, has the power of delegating its authority; it may delegate all its authority or. as the Bill stands, it may delegate a part of its authority.

Mr. JONES: What if it delegates all?

Sir A. GEDDES: Then it is quite obvious what is the answer to my hon. Friend—it has delegated all, and the person to whom it is delegated may prosecute.

Mr. JONES: Without consulting the Board of Trade?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yea; on the hypothesis which the hon. Gentleman has put forward.

Sir W. PEARCE: I am sorry, but I do not think it is quite clear now. Suppose the local tribunal, on the evidence, wish to prosecute a particular person, can they do that on their own initiative without reference to the Board of Trade, or must they first refer it to the Board of Trade?

Sir A. GEDDES: If the Board of Trade have delegated their powers, certainly they can prosecute. I hope that is clear. If the Board of Trade have not delegated their powers, they cannot prosecute, and I hope that also is clear. Now the object of the Board of Trade will be to give discretion to these authorities within reasonable limits. It would become perfectly impossible if small cases from all over the country were to be referred to the Board of Trade every time. The administration of such a thing would lead to the creation of what we all want to avoid, namely, a great central bureaucratic staff. My right hon. Friend opposite who spoke last night feared the creation of a great staff, and I would, too, if everything had to be referred back to the Board of Trade, and, there-
fore, it is intended, it is contemplated, and as I picture the working of the Bill we should delegate, within limits, the Board's powers or prosecuting. I hope that that is plain. I think it would be obvious to the Committee that there must be some central authority which will act as the shepherd of the flock of sheep—the tribunals which this Bill, if it becomes law, will establish—and it is because of that and because the Amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends opposite remove and obliterate that, and leave these tribunals independent and without a shepherd, that I think the Committee would not be well advised in accepting them.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We might, I think, have a very useful discussion if it was limited to this simple question of the tribunals, which my right hon. Friend has sketched out with clearness. Would it be in order to discuss that on the Amendment now before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: No. It is raised in several Amendments later on, and this Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thorne)proposes that instead of the Board of Trade all the various local tribunals set up under this Act should carry on the investigations detailed in Clause 1. That is the point before us.

Mr. G. THORNE: I meant by subsequent Amendments that there should be a central tribunal with subordinate tribunals, but I want them to be independent. I think the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is an improvement on the Bill itself, because in this Clause we have no indication at all of the appointment of this great central Committee, but, while I do not think his explanation is quite satisfactory, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, as he cannot give me any assistance on the lines I propose.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Board of Trade" ["Board of Trade shall have power"], and to insert instead thereof the words "Ministry of Food."
The object of the Amendment is to- substitute the Ministry of Food for the Board of Trade,. and I move it on three grounds, namely, speed, efficiency, and economy. For four years the Ministry of Food have been fixing prices and studying
trade, and they have a Costings Department in full working order and an experienced staff which by this time must thoroughly know the intricacies and difficulties of trade. The Board of Trade will have to set up an entirely new Department, entailing a new staff, and there must of necessity, if we have both the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Food doing costings work and the work of fixing prices, be overlapping and duplicating. It was my privilege last year to serve on the Staff Investigation Committee of the Ministry of Munitions, and there one found, despite everything which had been done—and may I say that the findings of that Committee so far as they went were that the Ministry of Munitions was exceedingly well organized—that the costings there were duplicated in many cases, and that there were departments in the same building where a large number of clerks were doing exactly the same kind of work. If you have two Departments, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Food, both responsible for the same sort of thing, there will be duplication of costings and a large increase of unnecessary staffs. My first point, as I said, is that of speed. The time to check the profiteer is now. There has been far too much time wasted already in getting on his track, and if the Board of Trade have got to set up a Department, to get together a staff, and then begin to consider this matter, it will be months before anything can be done.
I hope I shall not be lacking in modesty when I say that five months ago from these benches I pointed out that, whereas fortunes had been made during the War by profiteers, they were as nothing to the fortunes that were being made then and that would be made during the next few months if nothing was done. Five months have gone past since then, and more months will go past before the Board of Trade can get to work, and the profiteers will still go on, especially those in the wholesale manufacturing trade, rather than the retail trade, for after all it is the merchant and the manufacturer who profiteer in thousands and the retailer who profiteers in sixpences. It is the big man we want to get hold of, but it would be months before the Board of Trade could get on the track of the big man. Therefore, so far as speed is concerned, I suggest that the Ministry of Food can tackle this matter much more quickly. From the
efficiency point of view they can also do it, because they are experienced. They have had enormous experience, and they would know what to look for and what to go after in the other articles of consumption in the same way as they have done in regard to the food which is already controlled. The third reason I submit to-the House is the point of view of economy. If the Board of Trade set up this new Department, it must be far more expensive to start a staff than if the Ministry of Food enlarged theirs to whatever extent might be necessary. The Food Controller greatly impressed the Select Committee with the grasp he had of the details of the Department, and the House heard the speech which his assistant, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy) made on the Second Reading of this Bill. An hon. Member behind me says it was the best speech on the Bill. At any rate, I think the House generally felt that he-made for such a Bill an exceedingly able defence. I venture to suggest that in the hands of those two men, who evidently understand their own Department, this work will be well and quickly taken up. The President of the Board of Trade has himself said he has no desire to take this over. He has probably far more work to do than he cares for; and, therefore, I beg to move that the Ministry of Food be substituted for the Board of Trade.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend has moved this Amendment under some misapprehension. Matters which come specially within the province of the Ministry of Food are matters which will be carefully considered under this Bill. Undoubtedly, it is very often in relation to foods-tails and food materials that, in the language of the Preamble, prices are charged which yield "an unreasonable profit to the persona engaged in the production, handling or distribtion" of the articles. But, after all, the Ministry of Food is but a part of a very much larger whole. The Ministry, as such, takes no account, for example of clothing and boots.

Mr. HOLMES: My contention is that the Ministry of Food should, besides food, deal with other things, such as clothing and furniture.

Sir G. HEWART: The hon. Gentleman sees exactly the difficulty which is in the-way of his Amendment, because he is pro-
posing to give to an existing Department, with an important but limited sphere of action, a very much larger sphere of action, in order to put it in some such position as that now occupied by the Board of Trade. It is not the Ministry of Food, but the Board of Trade which, at present, has to deal with matters such as boots, furniture, and all the things in common use by great numbers of the population, and, therefore, primâ facie, one would say it is for the more comprehensive Department, unless good reasons are shown to the contrary, to have charge of this particular matter. What are the, reasons that are suggested for substituting the Ministry of Food? It is said that there is in the Ministry of Food a Costings Department. True; and so there is in the Board of Trade, and I do not know if my hon. Friend is aware it has been decided by the Government that there should be one Costings Department bringing to bear at one point the experience of all Departments—one central Costings Department—and, that being so, so far as duplication of offices is concerned, it matters not whether it be the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Food. With regard to speed, there is no difficulty. Once this Bill becomes law, any transaction of the kind which the Bill aims at preventing comes within its scope, and, on complaint being made, investigation—and in a proper case prosecution—will follow. There is no reason to anticipate that there will be any lack of energy in proceeding, and I, entirely fail to see whether, upon the ground of economy, or upon the ground of speech, or upon any of the other grounds my hon. Friend mentioned, there is any sound reason for transferring responsibility under this Bill to the Ministry of Food as against the Board of Trade. On the other hand, the Board of Trade, as members of the Committee are well aware, has a far ampler scope, far more comprehensive subject-matter to deal with than has the Ministry of Food. Whatever information the Ministry of Food has which is of use for this purpose will be at the disposal of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, on the other hand, will bring to bear much larger, much more comprehensive, experience than the Ministry of Food can have at command. In these circumstances, this is an Amendment I fear cannot be accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment, because I think it will be
most unfair to a very zealous and an efficient Minister. The Minister appeared before the Committee as late as last Tuesday, and he made it as clear as anyone could do that, in any measures which ought to be introduced against profiteering, these particular methods should not, in his opinion, be adopted. The proposals he made were entirely different from those in this Bill, and, presumably, as this was only two days before the Bill was introduced, and in view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade says that these proposals had been under long consideration, the possibility of dealing with the matter in this way must have been in the mind of the Minister of Food when he came before the Committee and deliberately abstained from making proposals on these lines. His name is not on the Bill, and there is every evidence that he would not like to be made responsible for administering such a fantastic measure, which introduces into jurisprudence an entirely new method for the twentieth century—a method which really recalls the methods of the Star Chamber. I do not want to make odious comparisons between one Department and another, and I think, if this Bill is to pass, the best thing would be to let this ill-favoured infant be nursed by its own fond parent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I sympathise very much with everything my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) said, except when he expressed the hope that the Committee would not accept the Amendment, and I will give an additional reason why it is most desirable at once to put this Bill under the Ministry of Food. The Ministry of Food has done very good work in protecting the consumer. The Board of Trade has done very good, and very necessary, work in protecting the producer. Its activities in the past few months have been principally directed, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in nursing the baby, in fostering the production of the very articles as to the high prices of which people are now complaining, and for that reason alone I hope the Amendment will be accepted, and that my hon. Friend will divide upon it if necessary. The Ministry of Food represents the consumer and this is a consumers' protection Bill, bad as it is. Therefore, I wish to support the Amendment.

Dr. D. MURRAY: I rise to support the Amendment. I was interested in the
somewhat subtle attempt of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) co create dissension in the Government he is supposed to support, by setting one Department against another. I quite agree in what he said about the Ministry of Food, which he seemed to think has more administrative wisdom than the Board of Trade. That would be a reason, though it is not one of my reasons, for transferring this work to the Ministry of Food. The Board of Trade have had a chance during the past few years, and they have done very little to protect the public from profiteering, whereas the Ministry of Food have done something in that way, and have acquired a great deal of experience in this sort of work. I think it would be a great pity if that experience should be lost in the new Department. The Food Controller's work has always been above board; he does not keep his policy in a box. That is another reason why, I think, the Food Controller should have this work, instead of the Board of Trade. Criticism has been directed chiefly to the central Department, but I think when we look at the local aspect, the machinery there is also already in being. You have food control committees in almost every locality in the United Kingdom, and you have food executive officers, and why should not the men and women on these committees, who have had great experience in this work, and the executive officers under the Food Ministry, be employed to do this work? It would simply be an extension of their work. Instead of that, this Government not only seems to have a mania for multiplying offices at the centre, but the local authorities are jostling one another at the street corners in running to attend various committees. Why should another tribunal be added to the existing tribunals? I believe in direct action to a certain extent, and here is direct action. We simply go direct to the Food Control Committees and ask them to do this work, and I believe they will do it far more efficiently than any brand new Committee the Board of Trade will set up. I was not at all convinced—I say so with respect—by the arguments of the Attorney-General. They were the conventional arguments. It ought to be obvious to anyone that we have already machinery in existence for dealing with this sort of problem.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I hope the Government will not accept this Amend-
ment. I am entirely against handing over the work of the Bill to a Minister who disagrees with it, but I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment in that I do not think it ought to be done by the Board of Trade. I am not so very sure, from all that took place on Second Heading, and from the explanation we heard to-day from the President of the Board of Trade, that he would not be glad to get rid of the whole business. He has said he is already overworked and overburdened. I see he shakes his head, but the suggestion was that he had quite enough to do without the worries and troubles which this Bill will bring. The purpose of the Mover of the Amendment was to find some other machinery for carrying out the duties under this Bill. Other machinery does exist. It is neither the machinery of the Food Ministry nor that of the Board of Trade. The proper machinery for this Bill is the Ministry of Supply. You are going to fix prices and to declare profits, and, unless you can control supplies, you are going to risk the dangers of disaster in all branches of trade. You cannot control prices unless you control supply, and, therefore, I suggest that the proper authority to carry out the provisions of this Bill is the new Ministry which, I think, is in process of creation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Major E. WOOD: I hope the Government will not yield to the Amendment, for different reasons from those which have been put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. K. Jones) and my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). With, regard to the last suggestion, my hon. Friend, I trunk, is sanguine ii he makes the suggestion at all seriously, because the Bill, as he knows, only lasts six months, and it is a pious hope of anyone to believe that the Ministry of Supply will be born before that. I cannot support this Amendment, although I shall be found supporting many Amendments moved from the benches opposite in the course of the Bill. I am bound to say I do not think the Bill is a very good one, and I shall be surprised if it can be improved. The Amendment was moved on grounds of economy and efficiency. I do not believe there is very much in the ground of economy, because only a very few days ago we were assured by the Minister of Food that he reduced the staff so quickly that he found himself very much under-staffed after de-control. There is another ground
which, I think, is important. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend (Mr. K. Jones) said, that the whole question will be bound up with the question of supplies. I suppose the Board of Trade, and my right hon. Friend, will be concerned very much with the question of supplies from the point of view of the imports and exports, trusts, trade policy, and all the rest that is bound up with it. On that ground alone I do suggest seriously to the Committee that we will be making a great mistake if at this point we divorce the administration which is only one part of the Ministry of Supply and which naturally falls under the hand of my right hon. Friend.

Colonel GREIG: May I draw attention to one matter which must have escaped every one of these critics of the proposed Amendment? If hon. Members will turn to Clause 5 of the Bill, they will find the following:
The powers of the Board of Trade under this Act shall in relation to articles of food to which the Act applies be exercised jointly or in agreement with the Food Controller.
So that in the sphere in which the Board acts—

Dr. MURRAY: It does not touch it.

Colonel GREIG: They will be brought in in regard to matters in which the Board of Trade are already controlling. May I just mention to hon. Members that during the War—and I should have thought they would have realised it—one of the most essential things that we had to have control over, and without control of which we might have lost the War, was leather. That control was exercised entirely by the Board of Trade.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment. I think we all agree that profiteering is merely a by-product of the War, and that it would not be caused except, for Government interference, trust manipulations, or labour limitations. If these things were out of the way, profiteering would cease of its own accord. It has got to be put down. I believe the Board of Trade certainly to be the best party to do it. I was very much interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Hull said when he suggested that the Food Ministry should have charge of the matter, because, he said, they represented the interests of the consumers. My opinion is that the Food Ministry represents the interests of the country, and
that they have done what is best for the country. I think they have acted in a very businesslike way at the expense of the consumers, because their Report says that they made £13,500,000 last year for the country. I trust the Board of Trade will control this matter.

Mr. NEWBOULD: I hope the hon. Member will press this to a Division. I have one reason, and one reason only, for speaking. I maintain the Board of Trade has not the competence that we require for this matter, whereas, on the other hand, the Ministry of Food, in my opinion, has the entire confidence of the country. I shall hope to improve the measure in Committee. It may be a forlorn hope. It is a very bad measure indeed, and I think this Amendment will be an improvement. If we can improve the measure it will be better administered by the Ministry of Food; if we cannot improve it, then, by all means, leave it to its parents, so that odium of its failure shall react on its author.

Sir H. NIELD: In this Debate one thing has been lost sight of by hon. Members opposite, and that is that this is a question purely of impartiality. We are now putting forward proposals which will set up bodies, and result ultimately in proceedings under the Criminal Law. Under those circumstances you want to be perfectly impartial. What would have been said in this House if, when the Military Service Acts were passing through Committee, it had been proposed to set up a tribunal composed of people from the War Office and Admiralty to deal with the matter, instead of doing what was done, putting the matter under the purview of the Local Government Board, as a perfectly independent Department of State? The Food Controller may have done his work excellently. I am not here to say anything on that point—

Dr. MURRAY: Is he not impartial?

Sir H. NIELD: I am not so sure! When a man makes £13,500,000 can he be said to be impartial? Whoever administers this matter, I submit, ought to have the confidence of the whole country. It is all very well to condemn this Bill as a bad one. Something is necessary. Even if the Bill only results in the setting up of these tribunals, those concerned may be frightened into some more righteous courses, and make it unnecessary to pro-
ceed still further. The Bill, as it is, is the best that can be done at this moment, and I for one hope it will go into every ramification of trade—wholesale, retail, and every conceivable avenue. I think the persons who administer it ought to be above reproach, and not be connected with the Food Ministry, or to be carrying on business of a similar sort.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: I would express my profound surprise that much of what has been said was not said on Second Reading. "It is a bad Bill," say some; "It is a good Bill," say others; "Nothing could be done better," say some; whilst other raise their hands and say the whole thing is past praying for. We all know full well there will be "snags" in this Bill which is dealing with an acute situation, which is causing a great deal of unrest, and has forced upon this House—

Major LLOYD GREAME: Ought not this speech to have been made, Mr. Whitley, on the Second Reading?

The CHAIRMAN: That quite expresses my view.

Sir A. WARREN: I wanted to say that a large number of us will support the Government in the proposal that this Department shall be dealt with by the Board of Trade. We believe it to be a right and proper thing. The Department has regard to the trade of the whole country in every particular, as had been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who referred to leather. The Department has to touch everything. [An HON. MEMBER: "The leather?"] I have yet to learn that leather comes under the purview of the Food Controller! [Laughter.] It is very delightful on this warm afternoon to find the House in such a humourous mood, and it can only augur very well for the speedy passing of this measure. I want the Department that has to do with the trade of the entire country to have within its keeping this question of profiteering. Implicit confidence as we have in the Food Controller—many of us have worked in helping in our local areas—yet we feel that the right and proper thing to do is to put this under the control of the Board of Trade. I use this argument for one reason. I am very hopeful that the Board of Trade, when charged with this responsibility, will take steps to call the attention
of the country to the fact that this question of profiteering is very largely in the hands of the people themselves, and that if they were only wise and reasonable and—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is going into a general argument.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. A. SHORT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "article" ["in respect of any article "], to insert the words "or the rent of any shop."
I desire to extend the sphere of activity of the authority in this matter, in view of the fact that I believe I have amplecases to prove that there is an extraordinary amount of profiteering going on in connection with the rents of shops and business premises.

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. Does this Amendment come within the scope of the Bill, having regard to the Preamble? Is not this Amendment quite out of order? The Preamble, of the Bill deals with articles produced and the handling and distribution of such articles. Surely, the rent of a shop is not an article?

The CHAIRMAN: The Preamble of a Bill is governed by the Bill, and not the Bill by the Preamble. I looked carefully at this Amendment, but I did not feel able to say that it was outside the scope of the word "profiteering." The Committee must decide.

Mr. JONES: Does not the whole principle of the Bill relate to articles?

Sir F. LOWE: May I suggest, Mr. Whitley, that the question of the rent of shops and other premises is already settled and profiteering prevented by the various Rent Acts which have been passed?

The CHAIRMAN: That really is a question that the Committee must deal with, not myself. I find no warrant for saying that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. JONES: Surely—on another point of Order—under Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, the articles are clearly defined to which this Bill applies? This Amendment cannot possibly come under that Sub-section 1

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee is not bound by that Sub-section till it is passed. The title of the Bill is a very wide one—"to check profiteering."

Mr. JONES: I was only wishing to save the time of the House.

Mr. SHORT: I was saying before I was interrupted so unnecessarily that there is indeed an enormous amount of profiteering going on in connection with the fixing of rents of shops and business premises. The rapacity of the landlords is well-known to the House in view of the fact that the House has had to deal, by various pieces of legislation, with the activities of this class of the community. It appears to me there is great hardship being created for the tenants on the one hand, and, obviously, the tenants pass, or attempt to pass, on in some way their increased rent: consequently the increase of rent, in my opinion, adds to the prices, and also to profiteering. I am assured on very good evidence that in the East End of London, where most shops are let on weekly tenancies, the increase of rent has been enormous. All these traders, I am assured, are beyond the limits of the Rent Act which this House has passed. I also have here a communication from one of the biggest manufacturing firms in this country which has in the provinces a number of retail shops, and they tell me that they have received a communication from one of the landlords to this effect:
I have received a definite offer of a considerably increased rent from a firm for the shop now occupied by you.
And the letter goes on to ask what this firm is prepared to pay for the retention of possession of the shop in view of this offer. If these facts are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, it is essential and desirable that the inquiry should go far beyond the provisions laid down in this Bill.

5.0 P.M.

Sir G. HEWART: Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Bill do not govern the
Preamble, and the terms of the Preamble do not govern the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend is aware that the change he is proposing is one of a very fundamental character. Whether one looks at the Preamble or the provisions of the Bill it is obvious that what is being dealt with is profiteering in articles being produced, handled, and distributed. The words of this Amendment would have the effect of making Clause I read:
Subject to the provisions of this Act the Board of Trade shall have power in respect of any article or the rent of any shop to which this Act applies.
The Act does not apply to the rent of any shop, and we should have a series of consequential Amendments dealing with the kind of shops and the amount of rents to which it is proposed to apply the Act. I submit that this Bill has already got a sufficiently difficult subject matter, and the Committee ought not at this stage to introduce the question as to the proper rents for business premises, and to introduce that subject into this measure would only complicate matters and delay the passage of the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think the Attorney-General has quite appreciated the effect of Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, which says:
This Act applies to any article or class of articles to which it is applied by Order of the Board of Trade.
If this Amendment wore carried, it would not unduly widen the scope of the Bill, nor would the difficulty about the class of shops come in, because the Board of Trade would be able to select the rentals and the class of shops to which it applies. It is extremely important that no form of profiteering should escape from the provisions of this measure. You already have a number of people complaining that they are being singled out for penalties, and it would create a very bad impression if landlords were allowed to escape. I can imagine the feeling of the country against the deliberate action of the House of Commons in exempting that class, and it will not redound to the credit of the Committee or the Government if such an exemption is allowed. Surely a Bill intended to deal with profiteering in articles must include a shop which is produced by labour, which is capable of having its price forced up owing to the increased cost of production, with the result that the occupier of a shop paying £25 a year finds his rent being pushed up to £50 or £75 a year. You are getting every day gross cases where men are not only being penalised in business, but actually being driven out of their shops, which are being handed over to somebody else, solely by profiteering in shop property. If there is one class of profiteering worse than another, it is that which is enforced against the small shopkeeper, because it tends to fall upon the shoulders of the community or else it drives the shopkeeper out of the business. Therefore, I hope that the Government will include profiteering in shops and thus convey to the country some form of uni-
formity and justice instead of exempting a particular class. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division, and if he does I shall support him in the Lobby, for I am sure it will be extremely unpopular to vote against this Amendment.

Colonel GREIG: It is not so much the shop owner and the small shopkeeper who are suffering from profiteering, but the middle classes. We have relieved a particular class by the restrictions already in force, and in the case of small dwellings the House of Commons imposed proper restrictions. While I agree that this is not the proper Bill to move such an Amendment as this, I am decidedly of opinion that the time is coming when the Government should consider the question of raising the limit under the Rent Restrictions Act or else of establishing a Land Court or Rent Court to which people can go who think they are being unduly taken advantage of and exploited in this way. It has come within my own knowledge during the last few weeks that cases have occurred where men have received notices to quit in regard to their shops, and the same applies to their private residences held on short leases. The thing is becoming widespread, and in these cases 50 per cent. was added to the rent. It is time this kind of thing should come to an end, and I think the middle classes ought to have a say in this matter. Food and everything else has gone up in price, and although rents are quite safe they are being increased 50 and even 100 per cent. I agree, however, that this is not the right place to deal with the matter, and as a lawyer I realise that it must be done under the Rents Restriction Act or by the constitution of a Rent Court.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: When the hon. and gallant Member says that a Land Court is the best way out of the difficulty, may I remind him that the provisions of this Bill are equal to the powers of a Land Court? The rents of shops, particularly in the poorer parts of large towns, add considerably to the cost of the articles sold by the individual who owns that shop, because they have to be taken into account in calculating the expenses, and in fixing the price at which he or she intends to sell commodities in that shop. It all has to come out of the cost of the articles on sale, and any increase of rent that is put
forward by a landlord undoubtedly affects the price of the commodities sold, and consequently to strike at that is also to strike at the profiteering that is going on.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I want to ask whether my Amendment fixing maximum wholesale and retail prices will be out of order if this Amendment is rejected?

The CHAIRMAN: I think so.

Mr. THOMSON: I take it that my Amendment covers a much wider field, and this Amendment refers only to the lent of shops. The Amendment specifies, first, that costs shall include a rent—that i3 to say, rent not merely of a shop but rent on royalties. I think the whole question of costs should be included in, that way. I think you are narrowing very much indeed the interpretation of the term "profiteering" as understood in the country, and I think it would be most unfortunate if this Bill at the outset does not command the confidence of the country as a whole. Although we are including the cost of wages and other things, we are refusing to include the cost of land, which really is at the root of reduced production, and which surely is also at the root of high costs and profiteering. We have been told repeatedly that the real cure is increased production, and how can you get that unless you are going to prevent profiteering in land as well as in other things? It seems to me that in a measure of this sort you want to have wider powers in order that the whole question of profiteering shall be taken into consideration, and in order that no section of the community shall be penalised at the expense of the other. I regret that the question of rents will not be included in profiteering under this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely this Amendment will not rule out my Amendment to include land, minerals, etc.? I understood that this Amendment was dealing with the question of the rent of shops.

The CHAIRMAN: That will depend upon what the present decision may be. If the Committee decides this point in the negative I cannot go on taking similar Amendments, although they may vary in magnitude.

Major BARNES: The Committee is really up against an important point, and on this Amendment it has to decide whether rent, as part of the cost of an
article shall be excluded from this Bill. If that is not so, I do not quite see why a decision on this Amendment should rule out the wider Amendment of my hon. Friend who wishes the question of rent, interest, and insurance to be explicitly mentioned in the Bill as part of the cost of an article. They are implicitly there, but the object of that. Amendment is to have them explicitly named, and that is rather important, because this is an inquiry of extraordinary magnitude set up under extraordinary conditions. I observe that there is an Amendment down to insert after the word "cost" the word "wages,'' and that appears to be a right tiling to do.

The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that both, those cases of wages and of rent and insurance are necessarily covered by the word "costs," and that it would be only superfluous to move the Amendments. In fact, they might possibly defeat the object on view by leaving out something.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not that really mean that these questions have to be considered when a case of profiteering in an article came up? We seek by this-and other Amendments to provide that profiteering in land, rent, or shops shall also be a subject which may be brought before die tribunal. The statement from the Chair merely means that these- things will be considered when profiteering in an article occurs, but we want profiteering in Land itself to be punishable.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a point on which the present Amendment differs from the one to which reference has been made.

Major BARNES: We arc very anxious that it should be quite clear that this question of rent is not excluded. Some of us thought that the decision to be taken on this Amendment would exclude the question of rent, but we have now got information of some value on the point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not quite happy about this matter yet. If this Amendment is negatived, I understand that it will negative the question as to whether profiteering in land is to be included in the Bill. If the Committee vote against this Amendment and turn it down, it will mean that landlords can profiteer as much as they like and can selltheir land at 400 and 500 years' purchase and yet be exempt from the; Bill. They cannot be brought before the tribunal or dealt with in any way under this Bill, if this Amendment is turned down. In that ease, there-is all the more need why everybody who has the slightest belief in the fairness and justice of this House should support this Amendment. I cannot imagine a Bill being passed dealing with everybody else and leaving out the landlord, who, notoriously, has made the most profit out of the land. It seems to me perfectly monstrous to exempt the landlord, although we do not exempt the brewer. Every other profession and every other form of occupation is roped in under this Bill, and the only person excluded is the landlord. If that is the sort of legislation which this House likes, I think the country will give them a rude awakening.

Question put: "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 198.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[5.20 p.m.


Darnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Ross, Frank H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hartshorn, V.
Rowlands, James


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Sexton, James


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Briant, F.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bromfield, W.
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, George A.


Cairns, John
Kiley, James Daniel
Swan, J. E. C.


Cape, Tom
Lunn, William
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothlan)
Thorne,G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Thorn, Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Newbould, A. E.
Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.


Dawes, J. A.
Onions, Alfred
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, J (Gower, Glam.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Pearce, Sir William
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Rae, H. Norman
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gould, J. C.
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Rendall, Atheistan



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
A, Short and Mr. T. Griffiths.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward


Agg.-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)
Nlcholson, W. (Petersfield)


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Baird, John Lawrence
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Baldwin, Stanley
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Parker, James


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Grant, James Augustus
Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)
Gray, Major E.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barnston, Major Harry
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Perring, William George


Barrand, A. R.
Greig, Colonel James William
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Griggs, Sir Peter
Pratt, John William


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bellairs, Cam. Carlyon W.
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Betterton, H. B.
Hailwood, A.
Purchase, H. G.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Hallas, E.
Raeburn, Sir William


Bird, Alfred
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Blades, Sir George R.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Blair, Major Reginald
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Renwick, G.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Howard, Major S. G.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Briggs, Harold
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Britton, G. B.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurd, P. A.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hurst, Major G. B.
Seager, Sir William


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Inskip, T. W. H.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Jameson, Major J. G.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jodrell, N. P.
Simm, Colonel M. T


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Kidd, James
Stevens, Marshall


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
King, Commander Douglas
Stewart, Gershom


Casey, T. W.
Knights, Captain H.
Sutherland, Sir William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Larmor, Sir J.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Law, A. J, (Rochdale)
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Clough, R.
Law. Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)


Clyde, James Avon
Lindsay, William Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Townley, Maximilan G.


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Lloyd, George Butler
Tryon Major George Clement


Colvin, Brig-Gen. R. B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Waddington, R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Wallace, J.


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Lort-Williams, J.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Ward. Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Lowe, Sir F. W.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Cralk, Right Hon. Sir Henry
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)
Maemaster, Donald
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.


Davison, T. (Cirencester)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Maddocks, Henry
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Dennis, J. W.
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Dewhurst, Lieut-Com. H.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Mitchell, William Lane-
Worsfold, T. Cato


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Yate, Col. Charles Edward


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Young. Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Murchison, C. K.
Younger, Sir George


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)



Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Murray, William (Dumfries)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Nail, Major Joseph
Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Fexcroft, Captain C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), after the word "investigate," to insert the word "publicly."
I anticipated this Amendment in moving my first Amendment, when I indicated that it was vitally necessary to make this Bill in any way a success that there should be an inquiry, and that the proceedings should, as far as possible, be in public. I did not get any satisfaction with regard
to the first part, but as to the second, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say he thought I was right. I should only be wasting the time of the House if I were to speak further until I know more of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions.

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, that this is the proper place to bring in any Amendment with regard to reporting the
proceedings before the tribunals. The proper place would be on Clause 4, where I shall be prepared to consider whether it is possible, should the House think fit, to move an Amendment which would have the effect of making it possible for cases that are raised on complaint, but not cases raised on the initiative of the Board itself, to be dealt with in public should the tribunal deem it expedient. But where the actual investigation is by the Board of Trade itself then I do not think such a provision should apply.

Mr. HOLMES: The proposal of the President of the Board of Trade is that the people who come before the local tribunals, and in the main it will be the small shop-keeping class, should have their cases heard in public, whereas the Board of Trade's complaints against the merchant and the wholesaler will be dealt with in private.

Sir A. GEDDES: I am sure my hon. Friend does not desire to speak under a misapprehension. That is not what I propose, nor did I say it. I said that at the stage where there was an investigation proceeding on the initiative of the Board there could be no publicity until the evidence was complete, as otherwise serious injury might result, but where the complaint is made, whether it be against the smallest profiteer or the largest then there should be an arrangement for publicity if the tribunal investigating the case thinks fit. I also said that at the end of the investigation, as provided in the Bill, where there is a prosecution there shall be full publicity and also when the decision is given.

Mr. HOLMES: I think that, in effect, what I stated was correct. No investigations can be made until a complaint is forthcoming either from the Board of Trade or from an individual. With all due respect to the Attorney-General—

Sir G. HEWART: There are two ways in which an investigation may be started, one is by complaint, the other is by the initiative by the Board of Trade, which initiative does not necessarily take the form of complaint.

Mr. HOLMES: Of course, I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says, that these cases can be tried either on the complaint of the individual or on the initiative of the Board of Trade. But in how many cases are we going to have
complaints made against the merchant or the manufacturer? The manufacturer or the retailer is not going to lodge a complaint against the merchant, and the retailer is not going to lodge a complaint against the manufacturer if he can make a reasonable profit for himself however exorbitant the charges of the manufacturer or merchant may be. More than that, it the retailer made a complaint against the manufacturer or the merchant he would be a marked man, and he would have against him, not only that particular merchant or manufacturer but every other manufacturer and every other merchant in the same trade or in the same market, and they would all refuse to supply him. In these days -when the supply is leas than the demand the retailer, except in the case of the goods which are rationed, depends for his supplies on the favour of the manufacturers or the merchant. Should he lodge a complaint against either of them he might very easily ruin himself in the process. Few will care to take the risk, and the result will be that the Board of Trade will have itself to initiate proceedings, and under those circumstances, as I understand it, the President suggests that these cases shall be heard privately and that only when complaint is made should they be heard publicly. [Sir A. GEDDES dissented.] What it comes down to is this, that when the complaint is made against the retailer it will be heard in public, but when the Board of Trade initiates proceedings against either a merchant or a, manufacturer they will be heard" in private.

Lord R. CECIL: I think the hon. Member who last spoke is under a misapprehension. In my opinion the Government are right in the line they have taken, that is supposing I accurately understand their policy, although I admit it is very difficult to be quite sure about it as the Bill is drafted. It is, I am afraid, rather obscure. But if I understand the Bill rightly, it has two quite separate objects—one is to make an investigation all over the country into the costs, and so on, of particular articles with a view of ascertaining in a general way what is the reason for the rise in prices. That inquiry may furnish material for any further legislation or further measures that ought to be taken. My right hon. Friend said, and I think quite fairly, that with respect to that investigation there ought at any rate to be a presumption that it is going to be private, because undoubtedly you are going to investigate the private trading affairs of the
whole trading community in. this country. It may be a very laborious and it may be a. very harassing inquiry, but it would be impossible to make any investigation into prices if it were known it is going to be public. Then there is a quite separate object, and as far as I can see, in the case where a complaint is made, that complaint can be made either by a private individual or by the Board of Trade. I think, however, you will not be able to hit the large trader, the rings and the trusts who are the worst offenders in this respect, unless you have publicity. You will only hit the miserable little profiteering village shopkeeper. You will not hit those big trusts which are causing such great injury to the public at this moment.
There may, I understand, in regard to this be something in the nature of a trial, and if I may be permitted to say so I thought it was a great blot on this Bill as originally drawn that that which amounts practically to a trial should be held in private. It is quite true, if you are going to have proceedings as a result of these inquiries then those proceedings will be in public, but I do not think my right hon. Friend has quite appreciated—and at any rate nothing he has said has shown his appreciation of the point—that the whole mischief may be done before you get to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. If hon. Members will read paragraph 2 of Sub-section (b) of Clause I it will be found, for instance, that the seller may be required to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of a price which would yield a reasonable profit. That may be, as I understand, part of the original inquiry. In fact, that particular transaction may end in an order requiring the repayment of certain moneys by the seller. That really is a very serious matter. It may be some of these small people will be brought up and charged with having sold at excessive prices. They have to defend it. They fail to make good their defence. But the only question which will be left for trial will merely be whether the retailer has complied with the Order made by the Board of Trade. The defendant will not be allowed to go into the question before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction whether or not the price is a fair price, because that will have been decided by the inquiry before the local tribunal. There will be no revision at all of that decision. I think that all the pro-
ceedings should be in public absolutely unless there is some specific reason for holding them in private. There, may be the grossest hardship to the trader unless you have that publicity for the protection of everybody concerned. I hope my right hon. Friend will give full satisfaction on that point. I would like to point out how the confusion arises. There are, I repeat, two entirely separate objects. One is to make an investigation into the general rise of prices, and the second is to provide a means of hitting individual profiteers. These are two entirely different kinds of procedure. They will have nothing whatever to do with each other. One is in the nature of a trial and the other in the nature of an inquiry, and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that proceedings which are in the nature of a trial shall have the utmost publicity. The inquiry into prices ought to be, generally speaking, a private inquiry like, for instance, the Census of Production. I venture to think my hon. Friends opposite are wrong in the view they have taken, and that it would be well for them to accept the offer of the Government, providing, of course, it can be made clear.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I find myself very reluctantly in disagreement with the Noble Lord who has just spoken, and I base that disagreement solely on the Report of the Committee on Trusts made to the Home Secretary, and produced in April last, although unfortunately no steps whatever appear to have been taken in the matter until clamour produced this hasty, ill-framed, and, as we believe, ineffectual Bill. This Report lays it down as desirable that every means should be provided whereby the fullest information as to the activities of trade associations may be made available to the public so that they may be thoroughly and promptly investigated, so as to get rid of all doubts and suspicions, and secure the true facts as to the evils for which a remedy is required. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Ministry himself, in a very admirable speech made on the Second Reading, insisted on publicity for all proceedings against either rings or combines. I shall be very glad to hear how we are to get this publicity if the trial of these big rings is to take place in private. I do not believe the man in the street will accept any such proposal.

Sir. YOUNG: think the Bill is pretty clear as drawn, and if hon. Members will
look at the Amendment tabled by the President of the Board of Trade later on, in which he gives himself power to initiate proceedings following upon an investigation started by the Board of Trade, I think they will see that the two objects are clearly distinguished. As the Bill is drawn, under paragraph (a) the Board of Trade limit themselves simply to an investigation, and the matter more or less stops there as regards the powers under this Bill. But under the Amendment which will be proposed they will be able to follow with a prosecution, just as they or the local tribunals can, following upon an investigation in regard to a. complaint under paragraph (b). I find it difficult to contend against the argument that has been adduced against publicity, but at the same time I feel that publicity is of enormous importance in connection with this Bill, not only for the purpose of checking profiteering, but for the purposes of education. It would be an immense advantage to our people as a whole, and the best possible lesson in economics, if they could be made to appreciate, on evidence obtained in the most public manner, the real factors which arc producing the increased costs which we have to bear to-day. Hon. Members will notice that under Clause 4 the information obtained at the Board of Trade inquiry is to be entirely confidential, although there is a proviso which enables them to publish findings.
I am afraid that official findings will have comparatively little weight with the people we want to educate. They approach official opinions and findings with some amount of suspicion, which we do not want. I would risk the possible damage which a public inquiry might do to the complex trade of this country for the greater advantage, at this particular juncture, of educating our people in what are the factors in the cost of articles today. The idea is not at all new. Price-fixing measures, very similar to this, have been in existence in Australia for two or three years. I do not know that they have been satisfactory in all respects, but I know that they have yielded results, and the publicity aspect of the question in regard to those Acts has been beneficial. May I give the Committee a single instance? It is not an uncommon factor in a, new country to say that you sell an article—boots, for instance—under the title that it is produced in another country. An English boot or an American boot commands support. The consequence
is that one sees the shops filled with boots made in America or boots made in England at very enhanced prices. There was a public inquiry in Australia under a Bill very similar to this, and it soon transpired, under a vigorous cross-examination, that practically none of those boots were made in England or in the United States. Very shortly after the fact became known, there was a universal writing down in prices throughout the boot shops in that country. That is an instance where publicity was immediately beneficial in curing profiteering. I look at the investigation under paragraph (a) as being not so much a means of checking profiteering, but as a means of informing the public, in the first place, of what the trusts are doing, so that public opinion may have very effective weight in that direction, and also of informing the public, especially a certain section of the public, how much they themselves individually contribute to high costs, so that they may realise that they cannot continually ask for increased wages and shorter hours and ignore the question of production, and at the same time ask Parliament to keep down the price of commodities which they wish to buy.

Sir F. LOWE: We shall all agree with the remarks of the hon. Member as to the desirability of making the proceedings public, but the point is at what stage should they be made public? There is a good deal of confusion of thought as to the effect of this Amendment. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that it only asks that the proceedings in the preliminary investigation—that is the proceedings referred to in paragraph (a)—should be made public. To that the answer of the President of the Board of Trade is conclusive. He says that these investigations are of a general nature into the general trade of the country to see whether there is anything in the nature of genera] profiteering. It stands to reason that those investigations should be of a confidential character. If they result in a complaint being lodged or a trial being held, that is a very different matter. I quite agree that those proceedings should be held in public, but for the present we are not considering that at all; we are only dealing with paragraph (a). There should be no two opinions about the fact of these preliminary investigations being of a confidential character.

Sir G. HEWART: May I add one word upon the scheme of the Bill as it will be
with the Amendment hereafter to be proposed by my right hon. Friend? There are three distinct things which are contemplated. The first is the general investigation of prices, costs, and profits; the second is the investigation of complaints, leading, it may be, to some or other of the consequences mentioned in the Bill; and the third is the taking of proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, arising out of either an investigation under paragraph (a) or an investigation of a complaint under paragraph (b). So far as publicity is concerned, what we propose to do by way of meeting the representations that have been made is to give publicity to the investigation of complaints under paragraph (b) and publicity to proceedings under the new Sub-section (2) where those proceedings arise either from the general investigation under paragraph (a) or from the investigation of complaints under paragraph (b). I should have thought that that suggestion would have met all the reasonable requirements of publicity.

Mr. G. THORNE: As I did not say anything in moving the Amendment, perhaps

I may say a word in regard to the position. I do not agree that what the Attorney-General has said meets the case I have in mind. I am a member of the High Prices Committee, and, as we have decided to carry on our deliberations in public, it seems that very much of what is comprised in the inevstigation under paragraph (a) ought also to be public. I quite concede that there might be certain special delicate cases which should be relieved of publicity, but, taking the matter generally, if the public are to have confidence in these tribunals or Committees, and are to trust to their findings, the general survey and investigation will have to be in public. Therefore, this Amendment is one that ought to be accepted. I do not wish to labour it or to obstruct in the slightest degree, but I submit that in the public interest it is the only safe course to follow, except in individual cases where there might be danger resulting to-an individual, that the whole investigation should be made in public.

Question put, "That the word 'publicly ' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 212.

Division No. 96]
AYES.
[5.56 p. m.


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W
Hogge, J. M.
Sexton, James


Briant, F.
Holmes, J. S.
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Bromfield, W.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Cape, Tom
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, George A.


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Lunn, William
Swan, J. E. C.


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan.)
Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Dawes, J. A.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wignall, James


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Newbould, A. E.
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Onions, Alfred
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Finney, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
G. Thorne and Mr. T. Wilson.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Blair, Major Reginald
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Borwick, Major G. O.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Clough, R.


Baird, John Lawrence
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Baldwin, Stanley
Bridgeman, William Clive
Cockerill, Brig-General G. K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briggs, Harold
Colvin, Brig -Gen. R. B.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Britton, G. B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.


Barrand, A. R.
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Craik, Right Hon, Sir Henry


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Croft, Brig.-General Henry Page


Back, Arthur Cecil
Butcher, Sir J. G.
Curzon, Commander Viscount


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Campbell, J. G. D.
Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Campion, Col. W. R.
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.


Betterton, H. B.
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Davies, T. (Cirencester)


Birchall, Major J. D.
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)


Bird, Alfred
Casey, T. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)


Denison-Pender, John C.
King, Commander Douglas
Raper, A. Baldwin


Dennis, J. W.
Knights, Captain H.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Larmor, Sir J.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Remer, J. B.


Edge, Captain William
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Rendall, Atheistan


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lloyd, George Butler
Renwick, G.


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lorden, John William
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R, F.


FitzRoy, Capt. Han. Edward A.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Rowlands, James


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Lowe, Sir F. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Foxcroft, Captain C.
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Seager, Sir William


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)
Macquisten, F. A.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N' castle-on-T., W)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C (Basingstoke)
Maddocks, Henry
Simm, Colonel M. T


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gilbert, James Daniel
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Glyn, Major R.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Grant, James Augustus
Matthews, David
Stevens, Marshall


Gray Major E.
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Stewart, Gershom


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Mitchell, William Lane-
Sugden, W. H.


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Sutherland, Sir William


Greig, Col. James William
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Talbot, G. A. (Hamel Hempstead)


Griggs, Sir Peter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)
Murchison, C. K.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)


Hacking, Captain D. H.
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Tickler, Thomas George


Hailwood, A.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Townley, Maximilan G.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Nail, Major Joseph
Ward-Jackson, Major O. L.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Oman, C. W. C.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Howard, Major S. G.
Palmer, Brig-General G. (Westbury)
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Parker, James
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.


Hunter. General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pearce, Sir William
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hurd, P. A.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Hurst, Major G. B.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Inskip, T. W. H.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Perring, William George
Worsfold, T. Cato


Jameson, Major J. G.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Jodrell, N. P.
Pratt, John William
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Johnstone, J.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pretyman, Rt- Hon. Ernest G.
Younger, Sir George


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Pulley, Charles Thornton



Kellaway, Frederick George
Purchase, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Rae, H. Norman
Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Kidd, James
Raeburn, Sir William

Sir A. YEO: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "investigate ["to investigate prices, costs, and profit"], to insert the words "from the source"
We all desire to remove suspicion from the trader with regard to profiteering. I think the only way that can be done satisfactorily is to trace this thing to the source straight away. The Minister of Labour, speaking on this Bill, said they intended to probe the matter to the source. Since the Bill has been before the House I have deliberately gone to two traders and purchased the same article from one at 2s. 9d. and from the other at 3s. 6d. It might be said that the man who charged3s. 6d, is profiteering. It might also be said that the man who charged 2s. 9d. is profiteering. As a matter of fact neither of them is profiteering at all. The goods have
come from one firm, and in that one road the firm has made two distinct charges in delivering the goods. Hence the people cannot afford to sell them at the first price. Therefore when you are making inquiries it will not be fair to say that the trader who charges 3s. 6d. is a profiteer, because he has had to pay at least another 4½d. to 6d. for the same article. You will get no satisfaction in this Bill; you will not remove suspicion from the people; you will not put an end to the unrest unless you tackle the thing at the source of supply. In my opinion the profiteers to day are the great combines, the rings, and the trusts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Landowners!"]They have always been in that cart. You never need worry about them. They can always take care of themselves. I mentioned the case of dried fruit a few days ago and said that if it had been left
alone it could have been put on the market £12 to £14 per ton cheaper than it was being sold. Since I asked the question the Government has controlled dried fruit, and it can now be purchased at 7d. or 8d. a lb. cheaper than before I opened my mouth in this House. You have to go back to the source of supply. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept these words, which will give confidence to the outside public and make them believe the Government is anxious not to cripple the small trader, and to go straight for the large man who is responsible for making these excessive prices.

Sir A. GEDDES: I quite realise the importance which attaches to this Amendment and sympathise very much with the hon. Member's motive, but I suggest that we should achieve the same result more clearly if we accepted the Amendment which stands next but one on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. K. Jones), which avoids the ambiguous phrase "from the source"

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I beg to move, after the word "profit" ["to investigate prices, costs and profit"], to insert the words "at all stages"
The only desire I had in putting this down was that the Government in its investigation should be obliged to go back to the primary source and take it at all stages—manufacturing, distribution, and that sort of thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JONES: I beg to move, after the word "appear" ["require any person to appear"], to insert the words "or be represented"
I move this because of this fact, which might very well arise. You are going to have this central investigation by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade may delegate the whole of its powers to local tribunals all over the country. You might find these tribunals might take an article which was manufactured at one central source, and go into the whole question of its composition, its cost, and the price at which it ought to be sold, and you might find very many of these committees asking the proprietor of the article to come and appear before them. Take the case of a friend of mine—I hope I may call him a friend, because he has cost me more money
than any other man I have known—Lord Leverhulme, who is the manufacturer of Sunlight soap and many other articles. There might be set up an investigation by a local committee as to whether the prices at which Sunlight soap or any of these other commodities were sold were fair prices or showed an unreasonable profit. Under the Clause as it stands, they might ask him to appear before them. It would be a very onerous thing if Lord Leverhulme had to go from one local committee to another all over the country. My Amendment would permit of the unfortunate manufacturer being represented and not being compelled to travel from Plymouth to Bristol, from Bristol to Glasgow, from Glasgow to Edinburgh, and so on, all over the country.

Sir G. HEWART: The effect of this Amendment, if adopted, would not, I think, be what the hon. Member means. As the Clause stands, it does not require a person to appear before the persons who are conducting the investigation. It simply gives power to the Board of Trade to require the attendance of a particular person. The power is given to the Board of Trade to investigate prices, costs, and profit, and, for that purpose, by Order, they may require any person to appear before them. It is quite true that in a later part of the Bill, if those powers are delegated to a local committee, the local committee will have the power which the Board of Trade would otherwise have. The power in the Bill is the power to require the attendance of a particular person. Neither the Board of Trade nor the committee is bound to require the attendance of a particular person. It is merely the power in a proper case to require attendance. If the Amendment were carried it would have this effect, that in no case would the Board of Trade or the committee have power to require a particular person to attend. It would always be open to that particular person to say, "No; I am not going to attend; I am going to send someone to represent me" We must assume that the Board of Trade in this matter and the committee will act reasonably. It would be a great mistake if this Amendment were to be carried so as to deprive the Board of Trade or the committee of any power to require the attendance of a particular person. Hardships can be imagined. A very busy and very prominent manufacturer might be dragged from one part of the country to another at the
caprice of some committee in order to give evidence which other persons might equally well give. That is an imagination which I hope the Committee will not take seriously. The mischief of this Amendment is that, if it were adopted, it would place the Board of Trade and the Committee in a condition of powerless-ness when it was essential in the public interest that a particular person should attend to give evidence.

Mr. INSKIP: The explanation given by the Attorney-General appears to me to considerably cut down the intention of this phrase. When I read it I understood that it would give the Board of Trade power to require a company or a syndicate to appear before them by their proper officer, and I was encouraged to believe that that was the meaning by the curious drafting of Sub-section (4), in which it says
where a person convicted under this Section is a company—
such-and-such an event may follow. Presumably the word "person," in Subsection (a), includes a company. But the explanation now appears to limit it to an individual person. [SIR G. HEWART indicated dissent.] The Attorney-General shakes his head, but I understood that that was what he meant.

Sir G. HEWART: Not at all. The illustration I took was the illustration of an individual. A company is an artificial person.

Mr. INSKIP: If the Attorney-General agrees that a person in this Sub-section also includes a company, I do not quite understand the drift of his argument that a company may not be represented. I should have thought it was essential that a company should be represented, otherwise it appears to me, quite apart from any general Statute, which I do not remember at the moment, that a company can hardly appear by any person but the secretary, who in many of these great rings or trusts is a person who has no knowledge of the matter he may be called upon to disclose. He has not the custody of books or documents. The real person to be got at is the board of directors. It would be much more beneficial that the company should be entitled to be represented by some person who can produce, as the representative of the directors or the syndicate, the real information that the Board of Trade desires to get. I should have thought it would enlarge the scope of the Sub-section
if power was given to a person, when he was a company, to be represented instead of appearing possibly through a quite ignorant and useless secretary.

Mr. HOLMES: Surely the Board of Trade, having the right to call any person, if they desire to go into the affairs of a company, will send for that person connected with the company—the chairman or the managing director—whose attendance they may desire, and not the secretary?

Sir F. BANBURY: If it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, would they insert some words which would carry out the intention of the Attorney-General? He said it must be assumed that the Board of Trade will not act unreasonably. I am not sure that that is not a strong assumption. As there is a good deal in the Bill about reasonableness, why not apply it to the Board of Trade and put in words that such powers shall not be exercised unreasonably? That would give the Board of Trade power to call any person, and it would to some extent meet my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment by preventing that power being exercised unreasonably.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The discussion which has preceded this Amendment shows how extraordinarily difficult a Bill this is to amend in order to meet the wishes of the Committee. I make this suggestion for the consideration of my right hon. Friend. It is quite apparent that this Bill can only be made reasonably workable by the Regulations which the Government are bound to issue. Those Regulations we shall not see. They will not have time to issue them before the House rises. Will my right hon. Friend give this undertaking, that in the Regulations which he proposes to issue, and which he must issue, he will cover the point now made, which is of very considerable substance, so that it will not be in the power of any official or body operating under this Bill through Regulations to act unreasonably, as many of them have done in the past, and may do again?

Mr. A. SHAW: Are we not to have the courtesy of a reply? I think the only point taken by the Attorney-General on this matter was a pure technicality, and speaking as a humble lawyer to a very great lawyer, I say that it is a technicality of questionable validity. The option he puts forward is the option to the
person who is to be summoned to appear either by himself or by his representative. The option which my hon. Friend suggests is the option of the Board of Trade to summon a person or, if they think fit, to summon his representative. I fail to see why the ingenuity of the Attorney-General cannot rise to the occasion and frame some comparatively simple words which will meet the very serious point which has been raised without in the least tying the hands of the Board of Trade, and making it clear that they will have the option and not the person summoned. If the House continues to be treated on an important Bill in the manner it is being treated now, and if the Leader of the Opposition, who, whatever may be its sins, commands the esteem of the whole House, is not to be vouchsafed the courtesy of a reply on a matter of substance, we shall have to seriously consider our attitude on this Bill, which so far has received kindly treatment.

Sir F. LOWE: I hope the Attorney-General will not give any such undertaking as that asked for by the Leader of the Opposition. This investigation involves very delicate procedure, and if the President of the Board of Trade is to deal with it effectively he must be allowed to call such persons as he wants. It does not effect the same purpose at all when you do not get the man you want but you only get his representative. He may be represented by his solicitor or counsel. The right hon. Gentleman must be entrusted with sufficient discretion to enable him to judge who is the proper person to give him the best evidence on any particular point connected with profiteering. I hope, therefore, that the undertaking asked for will not be given, and that the Government will stick to the Clause as it stands.

Sir G. HEWART: I am sorry not to agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Shaw), who says that the point I raised was a technicality. I am not going to reargue the matter. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) is well aware that it was from no lack of courtesy that I did not rise at once to answer him. What we did was to nod and to acquiesce. We shall be most happy in the Regulations which have to be framed to make it quite clear that persons may be represented by counsel or by solicitor, but not to deprive either the Board of Trade or the local
committees of the power to require the-attendance of any particular person. As-to the suggestion that there should be some regulation that local committees are not to act unreasonably, a regulation of that kind is out of the question, and I do not think my right hon. Friend did suggest-that.

Mr. SHAW: The House always follows with interest the speeches and gestures of the Attorney-General, but I must con-fess that I did not notice the nod, and in the general interests of the Committee I. think it would have been better if he had put the nod into language.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "and" ["before them, and"], and to insert instead thereof the word "or"
As the first paragraph of this Clause, stands there will apparently be no power to the Board of Trade to obtain information for the purpose of its investigations except by calling people in person. There is no power for them to get, for instance, a census of production bearing on cost of production, and they would never be able to carry out exactly the procedure laid down in Sub-section (a). The simplest way to put that right would be to enable them to write letters to people for information and to save people the inconvenience of an interview, or perhaps with the object of appealing to a wider circle of producers for information than can possibly be done by a personal interview, the simplest thing to do is to put in the words "and/or" I understand, however, that it is not considered good drafting in an Act of Parliament to use the expression "and/or" Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General whether he could not deal with this matter in some other way. Of course, the Bill is not particularly well drafted, and it is very difficult for us to put it straight. If my Amendment is carried, then they could call people to appear before them, but there would not be any specific power to ask them for information after they had appeared. Therefore, I would prefer to deal with it in some way equivalent.

The CHAIRMAN: I think always in Acts of Parliament the word "and" includes the word "or," not necessarily that they must do both, but that they may do-one or the other or both.

Sir G. HEWART: I think that that is Undoubtedly so. If the hon. and gallant Member would read the words of the Clause he would see that what is provided is that the Board of Trade shall have power to investigate prices and so on, and for that purpose to require any person to appear before them and to furnish such information and produce such documents as they may require. But that does not mean that this is a condition precedent to obtaining information. They may require, the person to appear or they may require him to furnish or to do both.

Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: On the assurance of the Attorney-General I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words
on any such hearing they may by Order (i) declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; or (ii) fix maximum wholesale and retail prices and
As the Bill' stands it is only when and after complaint has been made that the Board can declare prices. That is in (i) ct paragraph (b). The Amendment proposes instead of having the invidious distinction of an individual making a complaint, the Board itself, after investigation on its own account, shall be able to fix prices. The second point of the Amendment, and the larger one, is that, after the investigations have been made by the Board, something is to result from them, and I would suggest that one of those results would be that they should have the power of fixing maximum wholesale and retail prices, though we all know that in some cases when you fix a maximum price it becomes the minimum.

Sir A. GEDDES: So far as the sense and desire of the Amendment are concerned I am perfectly prepared to accept it if it is pressed. The actual wording which would be required, however, would not be "on any such hearing, "but" on any such investigation, "because it may be an investigation of chartered accountants, or something of that sort. I am not quite clear as to what is the advantage of (i) as distinct from (ii). It seems to me to be an alternative given without resulting in benefit from the point of view of anybody, and it adds to the complexity of the measure. But as to the general principle involved I am quite prepared to agree, if my hon. Friend would find words to amend this later.

Sir E. WILD: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he accepts the spirit of this Amendment. This seems to me to be the most important consideration that has come before the Committee this afternoon. As the Bill stands at present there are two investigations. Under (a) the investigation is a perfectly barren, investigation All sorts of facts and figures will be accumulated by the Board, and they have no power to do anything in consequence. But now I understand the President of the Board of Trade to say that he is prepared to accept words which will make it at all events possible for—and I should like to make it incumbent upon—the Board of Trade, having accumulated those facts and figures, to give some guidance to the trading community upon which they may act, because this seems to me to be at the basis of the objections to the Bill. The Board may, according to this Clause, on the second investigation—that is, an investigation of complaints—do a number of things, but on the first investigation it can do nothing. It is most important that the principle of this Amendment should be accepted, because then the shopkeepers of this country, who are very perturbed at the proposed operation of this Bill, will have something to go on. As the Bill stands, without the fixing of maximum and minimum, prices, or some fixing of the reasonable) prices, every single shopkeeper is gambling on a prosecution upon some complaint which may be made on every sale that he makes.
The real object of this Amendment is simply to amend the worst-drafted Bill which it has ever been my misfortune to read, and to fix some price so that the shopkeeper may know what standard he has got to live up to or live down to. If he does not know this, it simply means that the shopkeeper is liable to be prosecuted and to have to come before a tribunal, very likely a tribunal consisting largely of his trade rivals, and to take his chance of being convicted on a standard which will vary in every locality. It will, perhaps, be more in order to discuss that matter when the particular words of the penal Clause are reached, and I only draw attention to it now so that if the Board of Trade will do what I know they are anxious to do—co-operate with the shopkeepers of this country—and after making this investigation from top to bottom, not only of the little retail shopkeeper but of all trusts and combines, big and little, they;
will then fix a standard. I know the objection to fixing maximum prices—that they become minimum prices—but it is a great deal better to have some price, even if it is a little too high, so that both purchaser and seller may know what price may not be exceeded. Under the Bill as it stands any shopkeeper can be haled up on the complaint or any customer, perhaps a customer who is annoyed at not getting credit, or is an emissary of a rival shopkeeper, or is a non-successful trade rival, and may be brought before the local committee, consisting very largely of his trade rivals perhaps, or a bench of magistrates also consisting very largely of his trade rivals, and consequently shopkeepers—I have had numberless letters from them—are genuinely afraid, unless the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted, in which case the Board of Trade can give guidance not only to the public but to the shopkeepers, and then the shopkeepers will know the sort or standard to which they are expected to conform.

Lord R. CECIL: I must confess that I am absolutely at sea now as to what is the policy of the Government. If my right hon. Friend gets up to say that he accepts the principle of this Amendment, then it appears to me that the whole basis and structure of this Bill absolutely disappears. Just consider what this Amendment is going to do! You are going to have an investigation at large. It is to be an investigation in secret, which will be carried on not only by the Board of Trade but by every committee' all over the country. They are to be charged with the power of secret investigation into the whole trade of the country, at any rate with respect to a large number of articles of a most important-character. As the result of that they are to be allowed to make orders—every committee all over the country—after a secret Star Chamber inquiry, not only fixing the maximum price, which is a terrific power to give, but to say with reference to every article—every single article—what is a reasonable price, and if any one refuses to obey the Order or neglects to obey the Order he may be haled before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the only question that would be tried will be whether in fact he has obeyed the Order, and he may be sentenced to six months' imprisonment. I cannot conceive a Government committing itself to such a proposition as that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend must have accepted the Amendment by in-
advertence If he does, I can only say that no House of Commons that respects itself can possibly accept this Amendment that revolutionises the position and puts the whole trade of the country under the absolute autocratic domination of a number of committees extending all over the country, consisting of I do not know whom, with power to regulate the whole trade of the country in all these important matters. And this is the Government which requires an increase of production! Why, there cannot be a more fatal step. I really hope that my right hon. Friend was not in earnest when he said that he would accept the Amendment. As far as I am concerned I shall certainly vote against it.

Mr. HOLMES: There are one or two other points on the question of prices. Everyone is aware that the fixing of prices in the past has been followed immediately by a shortage of goods. I will tell the Committee why this occurs in many cases. Let us assume that a commodity can be brought from abroad for £ 45 a ton, and that a Government Department fix the price at £ 50 a ton for a merchant to sell to a manufacturer. Suddenly, as a result of world demand, the price of that commodity abroad goes up to £ 50 a ton. That is entirely beyond our control, because we have to buy in the world markets against every other nation. The merchant here ceases to buy at £50, because he has to "sell at the same price. The Government Department concerned then has to fix a new and higher price, which after payment of expenses would be a loss to him. In practice it has taken the Ministry of Food six weeks to make a new Statutory Order. During that period of six weeks the commodity does not come into the country and there is a shortage. If we are to have local committees all over the country doing this sort of thing, and we have to wait for them to alter prices, we shall have shortages of different articles all over the country. The arguments I have used are equally important in regard to a falling price Let us remember that prices are going to fall as world's production increases. I will take the same example of a commodity bought abroad for £ 45 a ton, with a fixed price here of £ 50. If the world's price fell to £40 it would take six weeks to alter the statutory price to the merchant, and during those six weeks he would be making enormous and unnecessary profits. Another difficulty about fixing prices is this, that some manufacturers.
can work much more economically than others. Those with up-to-date methods and large businesses can do much better than those with less modern methods. The Food Controller gave a most striking example last week to the Select Committee concerning a most important necessary of life. He said that some bakers could turn a sack of flour into bread for less than 10s, and that others required 30s to 35s. The Ministry of Food fixed the price at 23s per sack. Suppose you fix prices, and a man can manufacture cheaply. Surely he will still be making an unreasonably large profit? Therefore you are not really getting any further forward by fixing prices. I hope we shall have some further explanation from the Government before the House goes to a Vote.

Major GREAME: I think that the Committee have become somewhat involved over this matter, and that we have not been really helped by the contribution of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil).I do not think it is a material argument to say that the acceptance of this Amendment is changing the form which the Bill took originally. The Bill has left much either to the imagination or to regulation. If the Bill, as originally drafted, had set out what are the articles to which the Bill is, to apply, what are the powers which it is intended to devolve upon the local committees., what is the constitution of the local committees, and what are the principles upon which those local committees are to act, then I think we should all be in a much easier position in discussing the Amendments, because the general vagueness of the Bill lands us in this position, that on practically every Amendment that is moved one is driven into a Second Reading Debate on the merits and demerits of the Bill. I shall try to be as brief as I can, but I want to bring the Committee back to the Amendment which has been moved and the Section upon which it is moved. The first Section deals with powers which are to be given to the Board of Trade. Let us eliminate for the moment the question of the devolution of those powers to local committees or local authorities. As I understand this Amendment, it is proposed to add to those powers the alternative of fixing maximum wholesale or reail prices. I am perfectly certain, for the reasons given on Second Reading, that if you were to have this control at all, the control at the centre has
to go on concurrently, and that it is only from tile centre that you will be able to control the price in the earlier stages, from the importation to this country to the selling to the retailer, or from the first stages of manufacture, to the time when the goods reach the retailer. Assume that some of these powers are going to be devolved upon local authorities. I have an Amendment later which asks the Board of Trade to specify what the powers are which are to be devolved upon local authorities. The one power which, without question, is going to be devolved upon local committees is to decide what is or what is not a reasonable price for a retailer to charge If a local committee has a case brought before it, what, as a matter of fact, is it going to do? It is going to decide what is a reasonable price, and it will not decide it in each case on the circumstances of each particular case because, if it did that, you would have a million committees sitting for a million days. I do not believe any committee would accept that responsibility even if you gave them that responsibility in name.
What they will do is this: The first case will be brought before the local committee, and we will say it is a case relating to a pair of boots. What the local committee will, in fact, do will be to give a general decision as to what is a fair price for a pair of boots; and I am perfectly certain that the average local committee, when the next case of the kind comes up, will say, "We had boots up only yesterday. This is exactly the same kind of boot, and a fair price is so much" If that is the way in which local committees arc going to work, is it not much better to give them a general power of fixing the general retail price of any articles with which they have to deal? I hope that we shall not become unnecessarily tangled in this, and that in the desire to make the Bill as perfectas possible we shall not make it so perfect that no local authority will be able to work it.

Sir W. PEARCE: I want to join in pointing out the real danger which may arise if we attempt to settle maximum prices. We must rely on foreign supplies for a large portion of our food. It is an international market. If we fix prices here which cannot be altered quickly, and other nations are willing to pay a considerably higher rate than our fixed price, it will end in our getting no goods at all. I am not connected
with food importation, but I remember the case being mentioned to the House some time back of the article cocoa. It was very necessary then to get a large quantity into the country, but the Food Controller had to fix such a maximum price for this country that for the time being no cocoa came here at all; every importer could get a very much higher price in Marseilles or elsewhere on the Continent than in London. If we are not careful, that is the sort of danger we are now going to run.

7.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am beginning to think that it does not make much difference what you put into this Bill, because, as has been said, we are getting thoroughly mixed up as to the intentions of the promoters and the meaning of Amendments. What is the meaning of the proposed Amendment and the acceptance of its principle by the Government 2 This is rank Socialism, and is a most muddled kind of Socialism. If we are going to have Socialism, let us have it on a basis which we can understand. I understand the theory of it; I have had it explained to me; but if we are going to have this kind of muddled Socialism for six months, and if we are going to have all sorts of things spatch-cocked into this Bill, then, I think the Committee should protest. It certainly lowers what little moral authority the Government have still left to them for dealing with these matters. What does the Department mean by suggesting that they are prepared to accept the principle of fixing maximum wholesale and retail prices? I do not know where the trading community will be, either wholesale or retail. "Wherever we go, whether in the City or in the parish, and wherever business and the ex change of commodities is carried on, we find everybody hampered already by a thousand and one regulations which are choking business, and here the Government comes along and accepts a proposal whereby a sub-committee may decide matters and may summon persons secretly before it, and if it so chooses delegate its powers to those who can also sit in secret in the little parishes and small places, for the areas are necessarily bound to be small. I give it up.

Sir A. GEDDES: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and also to the remarks we have just heard. I would
really ask the Committee to look at the facts and not in any way to enter into strange matters, such as Star Chambers sitting in every parish to settle wholesale prices. The thing is grotesque. We are dealing here with powers which the Board of Trade may have conferred upon it. We did not include it in the Bill, because, although we recognised that it might be useful yet for a short period of six months, it would probably not count very much. Let us see what this means. The Board of Trade, after careful scientific investigation held in secret, discovers that there is reason to believe that there is a combination in restraint of trade, either intra-national or international. They see that there is evidently some big increase in the price of a particular article and that there is more investigation required. In the meantime, the community is being bled. In that case such a power of investigation, could not be delegated to anybody by the Board of Trade. You cannot start fixing prices until the facts from all sides are brought in. We are quite prepared to accept the principle of this Amendment, believing that there is an outside chance that the powers, even within the six months, might be useful. I did not accept the wording of the Amendment, that was quite clear; I said that if we were pressed we would accept the Amendment in a qualified form, because I do know there is a very considerable section of opinion in the House which believes that the possession of this power by the Board of Trade would be useful. I agree it might be useful once or twice in the course of the six months, but it does not form any main scheme in the general structure of the Bill. We cut it out before the Bill was introduced, but if the Committee desire to press it and see the usefulness of it and think it is desirable, we are not going to resist it.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Most of the criticism has been directed against this particular Amendment The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir J). Maclean) has referred to it as "muddle-headed Socialism," but I see on the Order Paper, in the name of one of his colleagues, an Amendment which asks for the insertion, after the word "profit," of the words "to fix wholesale and retail prices." It has come out in the Debate that there are certain firms in the country which can manufacture, owing to the efficiency of their organisation, at a very much lower
rate than other firms which are not so efficiently organised. Behind all this there is the fact that the price is going to be ruled by the man who is incompetently organised, and in that way you are placing upon this country and the consumers a tax which they have to pay over the counter, not for efficient but for inefficient organisation. I submit that that is one of the worst kinds of profiteering which you could have. In some parts of the country you have efficient organisation and up-to-date machinery which cheapens production, while other manufacturers are not so up-to-date or alive to the circumstances of the times and refuse to put in efficient plant which would enable them to produce in greater quantity, and because of those men you are going to tax all the consumers.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is not that the ca' canny principle in trade unionism?

Mr. MACLEAN: It is not. The ca' canny of which you accuse trade unionists is forced upon them by the very fact that you have that class of manufacturer who tries to get all he can out of the trade unionist and pay him the lowest wages for his work. That, however, is not in this Bill, although I would be quite prepared to discuss it with the hon. Member at any other time on a suitable Bill. "The fixing of a maximum price was foreshadowed by one of the Ministers during the Debate two days ago, when he said that they would have power to fix the standard of prices. I do not see, therefore, why the Government should be attacked because they accept this Amendment. If a standard price is going to be fixed, surely it is going to be a maximum unless you are going to graduate the price according to the methods of organisation of particular firms! If a business man in this House had two departments in his business, one of which was highly organised and capable of producing relatively very much greater quantities of au article than the other department, he would very soon as a business man eliminate the badly organised part and endeavour to bring it up to date. The Board of Trade, with the central control of fixing maximum prices, can say that those prices are going to be ruled, not by the inefficiently organised manufacturer, but by the up-to-date, well-organised manufacturer.

Lord R. CECIL: Eliminate all the others!

Mr. MACLEAN: Now we are coming to it, protection for the men who are not well organised. Is not the rule of competition the survival of the fittest? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the small men?"]

Lord R. CECIL: Supposing the man lives far away from a railway?

Mr. MACLEAN: Those are of the same order as the old women we hear so much about in other matters. If you have a, well-organised country, you are going to have production increased. You cannot have it increased by bad methods of organisation and if the fixing of prices is regulated by the inefficiently organised. There is no man more willing or prepared than I am to go out to the people and advocate increased production on the part of the working men, but I want to see the working man get his share of the increased production before I do so. I want to suggest that as a nation we should conduct our affairs in the same way that a business man, and an up-to-date business man, would conduct his business. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchinshakes his head. Does he disagree?

Lord R. CECIL: Yes, I do.

Mr. MACLEAN: He thinks that this nation should not be conducted on business lines?

Lord R. CECIL: I want to humanlselabour and industry, and not to throw it back on to a mere cash basis.

Mr. MACLEAN: But the best business is that which is organised on the humane basis. We want to organise the nation so that the best and most up-to-date methods of production will be used, the most efficient methods, and those can and will be used by the Board of Trade or the Government taking control of industry in this country and fixing the maximum prices.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am sure the House has listened with great interest, as will no doubt the country, to the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member as to the fixing of standards of price according to what is possible to the large trusts, involving, as it would, the snuffing out of the small businesses and the small shop people. That is a matter, however, which is hardly raised on this Amendment, and I propose to devote myself to the particular question before
the Committee. The last speech of the President of the Board of Trade shows that he is rather running away from his previous readiness to accept the fixation of prices. I would appeal to him to leave this matter to the House, to go further than this particular Amendment is apparently designed to go, to put his whole trust in the fixation of prices, to fix prices where there is speculation, and to throw aside altogether the Star Chamber methods which are proposed under paragraph (b) of this Clause. The particular form of words which my hon. Friends opposite have moved is not apparently acceptable to the Government, so I would venture to draw their attention to the words of which I have given notice in substitution of paragraph (b), with a slight modification, namely,
to publish Orders specifying maximum prices, chargeable at all stages of production, distribution, and sale, for food, clothing, boots, and household necessities in those cases where they have reason to believe that speculation is being carried on
I think it is necessary to define the commodities where these provisions will apply, because as the Bill is drawn it would only apply to-non-controlled articles, under Clause 1. Sub-section (5). Of course, if we are going to control prices, that makes that system no longer work, and therefore we must specify the articles to which this control of prices would apply. To my mind, the object of fixing these maximum prices is that then you could punish people for definite crimes, and you would not, as is now proposed under the Bill, punish them for what is merely a matter of opinion on the part of a local committee or of a bench of magistrates. The objection to maximum prices, I think, applies equally to the whole procedure of the Bill. We were told to-day that maximum prices tend to become fixed. Surely any authorised price, to some extent, tends to become fixed, and the difference is that, if you fix the prices for the whole country, they are a maximum, whereas, if a price comes before a local tribunal and is considered reasonable, that price is going to become a minimum, and it is going equally to operate as a flat price, if not throughout the whole country, anyhow through a large district. Therefore, it is fair to say that, in view of this power of hearing cases and fixing prices which are reasonable in certain conditions, the whole principle of fixing prices is inherent in the Bill as it
is drafted. I feel that, as this principle cannot be escaped, it is much better to deal with it systematically instead of piecemeal. The hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) told us on this Amendment that the objection to fixing prices was that you would decrease production. That same objection was urged to-day in a communiqué by Mr. Hoover, the American Food Controller, who points out that unless control is limited to cases of speculation it undoubtedly will decrease supply. Therefore, I think we should in our form of words limit the Board of Trade to those cases where primâ facie evidence has been brought forward that speculation is going on. Speculation can only take place where there is a shortage of supply, and those are the cases that we want to get at. I am afraid under the machinery of the Bill the speculator will not be touched at all, because he is not the retailer; he is a man much further back, and he will cover up his tracks in such a way that he will not be reached at all. You cannot get him by these Star Chamber methods. The only person you will hit, and him you will hit with great hardship and injustice, is the small shopkeeper, and I therefore ask the Government to take their courage in both hands, to accept the principle of fixing maximum prices, and to drop the objectionable Star Chamber methods which are proposed in paragraph (b)

Sir G. HEWART: I think it would be the general feeling of this Committee that this-subject, interesting as it is, has been sufficiently discussed, and I rise for the purpose of making clear the words which, if they are pressed by the Committee, but not otherwise, the Government are prepared to accept. Those words are, at the-end of paragraph (a), to insert "on any such investigation they may by Order fix maximum prices, and" But it will be for the Committee to determine entirely whether or not it is desirable that those words should be added.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask whether the intention of the Government is to limit that power to the central authority?

Sir G. HEWART: Certainly!

Sir D. MACLEAN: If that is so, it considerably minimises the power.

Sir G. HEWART: We should have to deal with that matter, if the House desires these words to be inserted, when we come to deal with Clause 2, Sub-clause (1).

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the price fixed is to apply to the whole of the City; for instance, in London, to Bond Street and to Hammersmith, or in Leeds to Boar Lane and to Armley? Is it to apply equally to the whole district?

Major HILLS: I welcome the announcement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One of the reasons why I was not able to vote for the Second Reading of the Hill was because it did not contain power authorising the Board of Trade to fix maximum prices, and now I want to submit to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin, the hon. Member for East Derbyshire, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, that really they have got to accept the fixation of prices, and for this reason. The Bill is one to stop profiteering. Profiteering is selling goods at too high a price, and you stop that by saying they must sell them at a lower price. Therefore, the basis of the Bill is the fixation of prices, and you cannot get out of it. If you want to stop profiteering, you must fix prices. How do you fix them? One alternative is for the local committees to fix the prices in their own area, and by that method you get a certain amount of flexibility, but you will get enormous varieties, and you will get the grossest inequalities, which will not correspond to the facts in a particular district. There is this further point. After the prices are fixed by the local tribunals, in many cases appeals will be carried to the Appeal Tribunals, and therefore you will get set up in a haphazard, piecemeal, and very inefficient way the fixation of prices. Surely it is far better to take the bull by the horns! We have got to fix prices or we cannot put down profiteering. Then; is one point on which I do not agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who said that the only body to exercise this power was the Board itself. I think you must have rather more flexibility than that, for, after all, the evils of fixed prices are great, and the greatest of those is that you have to fix a price at such a figure as will allow the inefficient to live. I think you can meet that by a certain amount of delegation. I do not think all the localities ought to have power to fix prices, but I think that bodies like the Appeal Tribunals, who will not be many in number, and who will be appointed for large areas, might very well be given the power to fix prices, for they, after all, will
have heard appeals from all the different localities in their areas. I welcome what my right hon., and learned Friend has just done. I think, with great respect, a good deal of the opposition with regard to the fixing of prices is due to a misunderstanding, and I do hope the Committee will sup port the Government.

Mr. STEVENS: I think a great deal of misunderstanding is due to the fact that an attempt is being made to fix prices-for articles produced on a large scale. There is a great deal to be said, I think, for the fixing of prices retail, but when it comes to the production of the great commodities in which we are interested, I have only to appeal, I am sure, to the common sense of any importer or any merchant to show how practically impossible it becomes. Take any commodity like cotton, wheat, oil, timber or pig-iron. How is it possible for the Board of Trade to fix a price for pig-iron to-day when it would not be the slightest possible use tomorrow? That is at the root of the difficulty. If the provision offered by the learned Attorney-General is limited to the distribution of articles retail, there should be no difficulty in the Committee accepting that. But once you get to the larger question, where our own larger markets are interested, it would be found impracticable.

Brigadier-General CROFT: I only want to utter one word of caution, if I may, with regard to this general question of fixing prices. I think the speech from the representative of the Labour party was sufficient to convince the Committee of the extreme danger. Here you are going to have pressure for a maximum which is only going to be regarded as satisfactory for the most efficient industries. That means that three-fourths of your industries are to be wiped out if you follow the advice of the hon. Gentleman. Would it not be possible for the Government, after investigation, to consider the possibility of fixing these prices in order to refer them to the local tribunals, and let the local tribunals give good reasons why they do not consider such a price is suitable for the locality; in other words, the fixed prices could be a guidance to the tribunals, and you could have that variation. I throw out that suggestion. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could introduce it on Report, but the fact remains that if there is any
general policy of fixing prices, as we have seen it during the last few years of control, it is going to have the opposite effect to that desired. We in this country are in the most convenient position of any country in Europe. Do not let us do anything by further control to limit our output and production at the moment it is required.

Major E. WOOD: With all respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, I do not think the question is as between fixing prices on the one hand and the proposals of the Bill on the other. I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend beside me, that whether you call it fixing prices in the Bill or not, the fact that you have investigation and all the machinery of the Bill, whether it works through the Board of Trade or tribunals, brings you to the same result, that in order to determine unreasonable profit you must decide what is reasonable profit, and, therefore, you must fix your prices. I hope the Government will stick to their determination to accept the Amendment, though I think it is a strange procedure to accept an Amendment which will entirely recast their Bill. While saying that, I hope that they will stick to their determination, and I am bound to say that I think the whole machinery of the Bill would have been much simplified by a one-Clause Bill which said that the Board of Trade should have power to fix maximum prices at all stages on whatever articles they thought necessary. That would have been a very much simpler method of procedure, and would have secured the real object we have at heart. As I say, I am quite in favour of the present position that the Government have taken. I am not clear, however—and I think the obscurity will become intensified—as to what the effect of accepting the Amendment, or the new form of words the learned Attorney-General suggests, will be upon the remaining structure of the Bill. That will have to be exploited later on.

Sir F. LOWE: I am bound to say I listened with some astonishment to the turn this Debate has taken. On the early stages we were told that the process of investigation was really to be confined to the Board of Trade and, after making a general investigation, certain other proceedings might be taken in consequence of what they found in the course of their
confidential investigation, and that profiteers, if found out, might be brought to justice, and, if found guilty, punished, and made to disgorge their profits. That was the scheme as it originally stood. Since then it has developed into an entirely different Bill. It is now a Bill to enable the Board of Trade to investigate, and, if they find it necessary, to fix prices. I do not say whether that is good or ill, but it is not the Bill as it first came before this House, and I must say I rather agree with my Noble Friend that it is a rather dangerous experiment. We have had the fixing of prices before by the Food Controller, and stocks were he13 up, and people could not get the things they wanted at any price. If you are to try this on a larger scale in regard to all commodities, you will get yourself, in my opinion, into a hopeless tangle, and it seems to me all trades will be strangled. We shall not be able to get food or any other commodities we want, and I do not know where it is going to lead. I look upon it with the gravest doubt and suspicion, and I do prefer the Bill as it originally stood. If this Amendment is adopted by the Government, and they persevere in the course, which I think most unwise, the best thing is to abandon the rest of the Bill. There is no reason to go any further. I say that it is the logical thins to do. I think they have got themselves into a hopeless tangle, and the sooner they get out of it the better.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I do not agree that the Government have got themselves into a hopeless tangle, but, in so far as it exists, I think it is due to a general misapprehension as to the proposal my right hon. Friend made. In the first place, if the House is ready, I say now, on behalf of the Government, we will gladly accept the proposal of my hon. Friend to have a one-clause Bill to enable the Board of Trade to do what it likes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—but I am afraid the House would hardly be prepared to agree to that. Let me try, if I can, to show exactly what the Government mean by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. It was discussed by us whether or not we should put these powers in the Bill originally, but there was never any question whatever in the mind of the Government as to whether we should aim at getting the object we desire by fixing the maximum prices. We came to the conclusion, whether right or wrong—and this is the foundation of it all—that the attempt to fix general maxi-
mum prices would fail, and the result would be all over the country that you would simply stop supplies. That, therefore, is not the proposal of the Government, and if, as I hope, the House will now be ready to go to a Division on it, it must be clearly understood by those who vote for the Amendment in the form my right hon. Friend has put it—and, remember, the House only agreed to accept the principle of free voting if it were adopted in words which satisfied us—if this Amendment is adopted by the House, it does not mean that there will be any widespread attempt at all to fix maximum prices.

Sir F. LOWE: They have the power to do it.

Mr. BONAR LAW: They have not even the power. It precisely excludes the power to fix prices by anyone except the Board of Trade, and the only object, I agree, is that given by my right hon. Friend. It should be clearly understood that the Board of Trade is not bound to exercise these powers. I think it is, perhaps, worth putting in, and for this reason. We all know there are certain commodities which are in the hands of so few people that they do regulate not only the wholesale price but they fix the price at which retailers are entitled to sell. It is only with those and analogous conditions that the Board of Trade will exercise these powers, if they are given to them by the House. The real fact is, we do not attach much importance to them, but we think they may be of some little value, and if the Committee is willing, we are ready to leave it to the decision of the Committee, having heard the arguments on both sides. But do not let there be any mistake. The adoption of this Amendment docs not in the least mean that this Bill is an attempt to fix maximum prices all over the country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is that an assurance?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Absolutely; and we will make it plain in subsequent Clauses of the Bill. It would be going against the whole principle on which we have adopted this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to know whether the Mover of the Amendment would be willing to withdraw it, and substitute the words suggested by the Government.

Mr. THOMSON: I should be very glad to do that.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: If this Amendment is carried, I propose to move words to limit it to those cases where speculation is proved.

Mr. BONAR LAW: To save misunderstanding, I will say the Government must resist that Amendment.

Sir H. COWAN: May I ask whether the adoption of the Amendment is not actually-giving the Board of Trade power to fix prices—the same power as would be given, under the one-Clause Bill, of which the right Eon. Gentleman himself has approved?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That really is not so. It is obvious that if an attempt were made to do this on any wide scale, more than the six months would have elapsed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words "on any such investigation they may, by Order, fix maximum prices, and"

Sir C. WARNER: I hope this Amendment will not be carried. It is quite true that the Leader of the House said the Government did not intend to use it in the way suggested, but it does give the power to fix prices. It would be a very dangerous thing, and I do hope we are not going to hamper the production of the country by such a suggestion as the possibility of this. The great trouble of trade and agriculture in the country at the present time is Government interference and Government Regulations. We want as little as possible of that, and anything that tended to increase Government rule and Government Regulations on the production of this country would be a most distinct and dangerous evil. It is true this Amendment is only the small end of the wedge. At the same time, it is not the original principle of the Bill, and, as the Government do not think it important, I hope their supporters will reject the Amendment.

Mr. SPENCER: The Committee can either accept an Amendment of this character or prepare itself for a continual demand on the part of labour for increased wages. Because, as has already been hinted to-night, there are in this country, as in all other countries, speculators, and the speculator is the chief sinner. But,
whenever the speculator has taken advantage of the state of the market to raise his prices, then those prices are followed by the men, firms, companies, and combines! who probably would not have proceeded on this line if they had not been led along it; and so prices go on soaring. It has been said by the last speaker that by the method suggested you are going to limit production. It has been said by another speaker that if you attempt to do anything of the kind suggested in the Bill that stocks will be held up, production will be limited, and men will not attempt to sell. A more serious indictment against the manufacturers of this country could not be made. What would hon. Members think if the miners came down next week and said, "Because we cannot get exactly the prices and the conditions that we are demanding we will hold things up?"

HON. MEMBERS: They have said so!

Mr. SPENCER: Precisely. But when that was being done they met with the unstinted and wholesale condemnation and anathemas of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. The people who constantly condemn the miner and anathematise him now propose themselves to turn and practice the same offences which they have been condemning in the miner. I say again, a more serious indictment has never been levelled against—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—against yourselves! An hon. Gentleman on my left said that stocks would be withheld. I was sorry to hear even the Leader of the House concur in that statement.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I never said so.

Mr. SPENCER: That stocks would be withheld!

Mr. BONAR LAW: No.

Mr. SPENCER: If the right hon Gentleman will examine the report of his speech in the morning, he will see what he said. [Laughter.] I do not think there is any innuendo in what I have said in my reference to the Leader of the House. It has often been heard from the opposite side that one of the necessities of the moment is cheap production, that international trade is being killed owing to high prices, and that we will be absolutely swept out of the neutral markets because of the alarming cost of production at the present moment. If that is true, and if wages
have to rise proportionate- to the cost of living, then you must either stop the soaring of prices or wages will follow, and the cost of production will continue to increase. you, therefore, get that alternative.
So far as we are concerned, we think the wiser of the two alternatives presented is to make some honest attempt to fix prices. We are quite cognisant of this fact, that it will be impossible to fix all prices. I do not know—replying to the lion. Member near me—why I should be concerned about a maximum price for pig-iron [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

An HON. MEMBER: Some of us are very much concerned.

Mr. SPENCER: You may be. I do not understand it, and I am not going to speak about that which I do not under stand. I would argue for the fixing of maximum prices for those commodities which I do understand something of, and which the working classes of this country have to purchase from day to day and from week to week. These are things which undoubtedly are causing serious un rest. Of the two alternatives the better is the fixing of these prices, as I have already stated. The Noble Lord opposite is a man who when he speaks undoubtedly gains attention and the warm appreciation of hon. Members on these benches. But I listened to him to-night with some degree of apprehension, and I may say dissatisfaction. Why? I can understand the Noble Lord's position, and I can understand that of any other hon. Member who says, "I am totally opposed to any such fixing of prices" But I cannot understand any hon. Member saying, "I only object"—and this is the implication of the objection of the Noble Lord—I only object to fixing maximum prices when you are seeking to deal with the wholesaler—

Lord R. CECIL: No, no!

Mr. SPENCER: Very well. Then this Bill—

Lord R. CECIL: I am sorry to interrupt, but may I say that the only thing that attracts me to this Amendment is the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who explained very carefully that he only agreed with the Amendment because he disagreed with the arguments of those who opposed it, and on the ground that it hit the rings, and trusts, and the big people. If I was quite sure
that that really was the useful effect of this Amendment, or even the possible;effect of it, I myself should be rather disposed to support it. But that is just my I whole criticism of this Bill—though I am I glad to support it as better than nothing—it does hit the small man and does not j hit the big one.

Mr. SPENCER: I understood the Noble Lord in speaking to be alarmed by this fact: that right throughout the country we are going to set up committees—in quisitions—to investigate documents and ' the whole of the facts of the case, and then we are going to invest them with the right to fix maximum prices. The Noble Lord objects?

Lord R. CECIL: Oh, yes!

Mr. SPENCER: If the Noble Lord does, lie must of necessity object in Committee to the fixing of maximum prices at any stage, whether in relation to the retailer or the wholesaler. He cannot have it both ways. If he objects to the investigation and examination of the whole of the case and then to the fixing of maximum prices, if he is going to be logical he must object so far as the retailer and everyone else is concerned. I can assure the Noble Lord if he only objects when it comes to the wholesaler—

Lord R. CECILdissented.

Mr. SPENCER: What is the use of attempting to fix maximum prices in relation to the small retailer and to invest certain committees with certain powers? I understand there are two kinds of committees to be set up. There is the local committee which is going to investigate the facts in relation to complaints that may have been lodged. They are to have the right to do two or three things. They

are to have the right of investigating complaints, of fixing maximum prices, and to make the man who has made an exorbitant profit disgorge his ill-gotten gains, or take him before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The other committee is going to investigate the larger cases, but is absolutely destitute of any power to deal with those who have been making the larger profits. What is the use of a committee of investigation unless they are to be invested with the same power to deal with those whom they believe guilty of extraordinary profiteering? For these various reasons I am going to support the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to the Committee that this has now been very well discussed, and that we might come to a decision?

Sir H. COWAN: I hope the House will not give the Board of Trade these autocratic powers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] If they are exercised with a view to fixing prices in such a way as to yield sufficient profit to the larger trader and the larger producer, they will crush out of existence hundreds of thousands of small traders, which I think cannot be the object of the Government. On the other hand, if prices are to be put at such a figure as will give an adequate profit to the small trader, then the large trader will continue to profiteer, and to profiteer under the sanction of the Bill. That cannot possibly be the intention of the Government or of the House. The Government have left the vote to the free decision of the House, and I hope the House will reject this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 95.

Division No. 97.]
AYES
[7.57 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Agg-Gardner, sir James Tynte
Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Finney, Samuel


Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf
Casey, T. W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Baird, John Lawrence
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Gardiner, J. (Perth)


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Birchall, Major J. D.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Gray, Major E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Dalziel, Fir Davison (Brixton)
Greame, Major P. Lloyd-


Briant, F.
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Green, J F. (Leicester)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar


Britton, G. B.
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewel)
Gregory, Holman


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)


Bromfield, W.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Grundy, T. W.


Cairns, John
Doyle, N. Grattan
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Edge, Captain William 
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E)


Cape, Tom
Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)


Carew, Charles R S. (Tiverton)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)


Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Spencer, George A.


Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Nail, Major Joseph
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Hirst, G. H.
Norris, Sir Henry G.
Stanley, Col. Hon. C. F. (Preston)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Onions, Alfred
Stevens, Marshall


Holmes, J. S.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Howard, Major S. G.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Sugden, W. H.


Jesson, C.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Swan, J. E. C.


Jourell, N. P.
Pratt, John William
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Johnson, L. S.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Johnstone, J.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Raeburn, Sir William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Kellaway, Frederick George
Raper, A. Baldwin
Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Tickler, Thomas George


Kenyon, Barnet
Richardson, Ft. (Houghton)
Vickers, D.


Kidd, James
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Waish, S. (Ince, Lanes.)


King, Commander Douglas
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Ward-Jackson, major C. L.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Wignall, James


Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Wilkie, Alexander


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Williams. A. (Consett, Durham)


Lunn, William
Sexton, James
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C)


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Simm, Colonel M. T



Morgan, Major D. Watts
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
G. Barnes and Mr. T. Thomson.


NOES


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Oman, C. W. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Barnston, Major Harry
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Perring, William George


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Gilbert, James Daniel
Purchase, H. G.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Grant, James Augustus
Raw, H. Norman


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Griggs, Sir Peter
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Blair, Major Reginald
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Hailwood, A.
Remer, J. B.


Briggs, Harold
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert. Denniss (Hertford)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Hinds, John
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Hurd, P. A.
Rowlands, James


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurst, Major G. B.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Seddon, J. A.


Campion, Col. W. R.
Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Carr, W. T.
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sprot. Colonel Sir Alexander


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Kiley, James Daniel
Stewart, Gershom


Clough, R.
Larmor, Sir J.
Talbot. Rt. Han. Lord E. (Chichester)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Townley, Maximilan G.


Cockerill, Brig -General G. K.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Colvin, Brig-Gen. R. B.
Lorden, John William
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)
Lort-Williams, J.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Yeo Sir Alfred William


Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir


Denison-Pender, John C.
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
F. Lowe and Sir Henry Cowan.


Dennis, J. W.
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "in those cases where there is evidence of the existence of speculation"
8.0 P.M.
We have heard from the Government that it is impracticable to fix prices in all cases, and we have had strong warning from Mr. Hoover in the newspapers to-day that attempts to control prices, otherwise than in the sense of controlling vicious speculation, can only result in a further curtail-
ment of the commodities available. la view of that warning we shall be wise to limit controlled prices to bad cases, and to only the dangerous cases where speculation is going on.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Government will not accept these words, as this Amendment will vitiate the verdict of the House. The word "speculation" is a very vague term, and I regret that the hon. and gallant Member did not follow his prophet, Mr. Hoover, further and include the words "used in regard to
restraint of trade" You leave out the man who holds back goods or corners them by this suggestion.

Sir A. GEDDES: I think it is really undesirable to limit the powers which the Committee has just agreed to by such a term as ''speculation," and for once I agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). There, are things quite different to speculation which might have to be dealt with, and I can see no advantage to be gained from putting in these words, which I trust will not be pressed.

Lord R. CECIL: I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not shut his eyes altogether to this Amendment. The Government have stated that they do not propose to employ these powers except where there is something like a ring, or holding back, or speculation. I think it is very important not to give these vague and general powers to the Government. I am not speaking of this Government particularly, and let us hope that it will last for six months. It may be that the President, whose talents we all admire, may be sent off to something, quite different, and possibly he may be the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in that case we may have quite a different President, who may adopt the ruthless policy of the Labour party and fix prices so as to destroy all competition with the larger trusts. If these words are mot accepted, will my right hon. Friend assure us that on report he will consider whether some words cannot be inserted to limit these general powers I can assure my "right hon Friend that there is nothing the country is so sick and tired of as the policy of control. This is a Bill, with these powers in it, really to open the door, as far as this particular branch of the subject is concerned, to the full extent of the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act. It gives power to fix maximum prices and to control the whole trade of the country in these matters. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some undertaking that between this and the Report stage he will try and devise words which will assuage the anxiety we feel about possibilities of this kind and about precedents being established in such a light-hearted way by the present Government.

Major E. WOOD: I think it would facilitate business very much if the right hon Gentleman would give some indication that he would endeavour to follow the
course suggested by my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil). I think there is a little misunderstanding on the point. I am quite conscious, and I think everybody who voted for the last Amendment, except those who went into the Lobby by mistake, is quite aware that there is an objection to a general fixing of prices. There is no difference of opinion between the Committee and members of the Government on that point. All that we want to provide is that these powers should only apply where there is a primâ facie case of speculation, All I want to do is to make sure of doing what was the view of the Committee when it supported the last Amendment.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: As far as the miners are concerned they did, at the beginning of the War, make an offer to the Government that if you keep prices where they are, we will never ask you for another penny. Immediately the War broke out the prices of things soared up, and, if this Amendment is carried, it will moan that there are certain firms making huge profits with whom the Government would have no power whatever to deal. I can give one case in point. A certain colliery company in my own county have declared a dividend of 35 percent., and out of the undivided profits have allotted two shares for every one held by the shareholders That is the sort of thing that is going on, and yet the general public are asked to pay to that company another 6s. per ton, though those dividends were realised without the additional price. Does not that call for some control, so that the poor may have a chance to live? These people are charging very enhanced prices, and no one can control them in any way. I trust that the Government will accept the Amendment as proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: After the words last inserted, add the word "and"—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (b).
The effect of this Amendment would be to leave out the very arbitrary powers which this Bill proposes to give to the local committees and to the local benches of magistrates, and it would cause the Government to rely on the checking of profiteering by the fixing of maximum prices. I believe that the effective way of getting rid of profiteering is to fix maximum prices right through, from the raw material down to the finished article and
the retailer. I do not think that we shall solve these questions by calling up the small shopkeeper and accusing him of making inordinate profits. The tendency, in some cases, will be to increase the prices charged by people in a large way. They will see the small shopkeeper called up and convince the local tribunal that to enable him to carry on his business at all it is necessary, owing to the smallness of his business, that he should make a considerable profit, measured in percentages, on the single bargain. la it not very likely, when that becomes known, that there will be argued there from a justification for the same prices being charged by the big business with a large turnover? This piecemeal fixing of prices inferentially by the dismissal of cases by the local tribunals on the ground of reasonableness is about the worst form that you could possibly have, and, when coupled with it you have the arbitrary decisions which will have to be arrived at by benches of magistrates as to what is reasonable or unreasonable in the way of profit, I think the whole of the paragraph becomes so objectionable that the Government would be well advised to drop it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to support the Amendment largely on the same ground, strange as that may appear to some of my hon. Friends. This Bill is neither one thing nor the other. It is a hopeless compromise and a thoroughly bad one. The Government, in view of the world conditions, had before them two courses. One was the complete taking over and controlling of all sources of supply, production, distribution, and exchange—complete Socialism, if you like—and the other was the leaving of everything clear and free and allowing people to get into their stride again—the removal of all embargoes and allowing trade to flow freely. They are going to do neither. They are simply going to set one half of the country against the other half. They are going to have all this persecution, espionage, and conspiracy. They are not going to lower prices at all. They are simply going to harass the decent trader and make it difficult for young men coming back from the War to set up again in business. It is a big problem, and this Bill has been introduced with a parochial mind. It is devised to get at the small retailer and haberdasher. Those are not the people who are to blame at all. At the last minute, as the result of speeches in this House and
Press agitation, the Government are pretending that they are going to get at the trusts. That was not the original intention. They are going to injure the country irretrievably by this Bill. That is why I voted against it on the Second Heading, and why I shall vote against it on the Third Reading, and for the same reason I shall support this Amendment.

Major HILLS: I rise to support the Amendment, and I wish in all seriousness to bring the Committee back to the suggestion which was made by the Leader of the House. I sincerely believe, if we had a one-Clause Bill for the fixing of prices and left out all the rest, that the country would be much better off, prices would come down, and incidentally we should get to bed early. I do not think the Government realise the full effect of the Amendment which they have just accepted. You either fix prices by the decisions of local tribunals or by the decrees of the Board of Trade, and the Committee have approved of the second course. All the machinery for fixing prices exists. The Costings Department of the Ministry of Food has worked out fixed prices, and it would not be very difficult. It would be a great thing if we could sweep away all these tribunals which are bound to be extremely expensive and unpopular and which will not get the facts upon which the Board of Trade can act. The Board of Trade can get all their facts centrally. If they like to delegate the power, they can delegate it, but in that case it ought to be to large areas and not to small areas. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, to consider whether he cannot lighten the ship. I want to stop profiteering as much as any Member of this House, but I voted against the Second Reading of this Bill because, among other things, I was quite convinced that it would hit the small man and let the big man off. This in my conviction, but still the right hon. Gentleman met us so fairly on the last Amendment that I hope he will now go a step further and see the true indication of the Amendment just proposed. If he does that I believe we may get a good Bill, while proving that those of us who went into the Lobby against this measure will be shown to be in the right.

Sir A. GEDDES: This Amendment, if it were carried, would entirely alter the whole procedure of the Bill, and, in my opinion, it would alter it very much for the worse. I am sure that the hon. and
gallant Member who has just spoken does not even yet understand what the Bill is about.

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: Does anyone understand?

Sir A. GEDDES: I admit it is not easy to understand a Bill like this. The Bill originally drafted, which absolutely set out all the details, was a far bigger measure than the one now before the Committee. This Bill is an effort to get drafted in as short a space as possible a statement which will confer the powers necessary on the Board of Trade and on the Government. This particular Clause is absolutely vital to our conception of the machinery which it is necessary to use in order to cope with the evil of profiteering. We have at the present time operations which look like vast profiteering run on a wholesale scale, and this Bill is not merely intended to deal with the small man as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Hull, who, if he will do me the honour of looking at the evidence I gave before the Committee upstairs—

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: We have had no opportunity of looking at it.

Sir E. GEDDES: —the hon. Member will see that in a statement I made there I said that the Bill was based on the Report of the Committee on Trusts—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have looked through the papers most carefully. I find no trace of any official document. All I can get is the "Times" report of the right lion Gentleman's evidence.

Sir A. GEDDES: There is an Official Report of all evidence given before Select Committees.

Mr. HURD: But it is not available to Members of the House.

Sir A. GEDDES: I am not responsible for that.

Mr. HURD: The order for publication has not been made. It has been withheld.

Sir A. GEDDES: The facts are quite plain. If this Bill had been designed as suggested, to deal solely with the small trader, it would not have been drafted in this way. But, in addition to dealing with big men, we do want to deal with small
ones. There is very often in quite mean streets a great deal of profiteering. That is undoubted. There is no good m saying that a central Department sitting in London is going to deal with small cases of profiteering in things for which you cannot fix a price—small things in bulk individually, but serious in the aggregate. You might take villages and towns in all parts of the country. It is absolutely necessary, I feel sure, if the people of this country are going to be convinced that they are not being robbed by their shopkeepers, that we should have some legislation such as this. What we have to provide for these people is some place to which they can go and at which they can lodge a complaint, and, that having been done, we set up an investigation; and I hope we shall be able to satisfy them that they are not really defenceless before the operations of greedy people. That is an absolutely vital weapon for the Government of this country to possess during the time Parliament is not sitting, and that power is created and confirmed by this Clause here. This Sub-section, therefore, is an absolutely vital part of the procedure which, rightly or wrongly, the Government has come to believe is the right and proper procedure to deal with this evil, and I would, therefore, urge the Committee to let us have this Sub-section and to pass on to the consideration of other proposals in the Bill.

Mr. WIGNALL: This is indeed a House of surprises, and one surprise to me has been the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull. I certainly never expected to hear a speech such as he has delivered to-night denouncing this Clause, because to my mind to eliminate the Clause would be to destroy all the value of the Bill. We must realise that if we are to attempt to deal with profiteering we have to begin somewhere. If I were convinced, as I am not, that this Bill vas intended and designed only to deal with the small shopkeeper in the mean streets, in the by-ways, or in the larger streets, I would be the first to deliver my vote against it, and to express with the utmost vehemence my protest against the injustice of the whole thing. But I am not convinced that that is the real object of it, because during the past year one has been able to gain some sort of experience and knowledge of the value of fixing prices and controlling them. Unless, you fix the price, and unless you investigate and inquire
into the unfair prices that are being charged, there is no possible way of dealing with this evil. I had a wicked case of profiteering brought to my notice during the last week-end. A retailer in a, general way told me that he had a big sale of controlled boots issued at certain fixed prices, a good article, well made and suitable to the district, and retailed at the j price of 29s. The boots were made of controlled leather, purchased at prices fixed, and sold to the retailer at a figure which enabled him to retail them at 29s. He told me his firm had sold many hundreds of pairs, and had placed orders for many more hundreds of pairs of the same quality. But then the controlled price was taken off, and his order, as a result, was not supplied. When he did get some more boots of the same quality they had to be retailed at 32s. They were exactly the same boots, made of the same leather, and it was the taking off of the controlled I price which gave the profiteer his chance to compel the retailer to sell at an increased price, which, of course, the working classes had to pay. Under the powers of a Clause such as this you may, in the first place, have to deal with the retailer, but then you can trace the matter back until you get to the wholesaler or the manufacturer. During the War period, when controlled prices were put on and it was illegal to sell above those prices, I sat on the bench dealing with hundreds of cases. Many a time a small shopkeeper was brought up because he was selling above the fixed price, and by inquiring into the case we were able to find out where the shopkeeper bought his goods and at what prices they were supplied. In that way, what was a trivial case at the beginning assumed larger proportions, and we were able to get hold of the real villain of the play. I trust the Committee will not accept this Amendment, because to strike out this part of the Clause would be taking the very soul out of the Bill.

Sir S. HOARE: I agree fully with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down about the effect of taking off controlled prices. Immediately the price leaps up. It is because of that that several hon. Members sitting around me and myself voted for the last Amendment. We think a much more effective and simpler method of dealing with this problem would be the fixation of prices rather than the very complicated machinery set
up in this paragraph. I am inclined to think that this part of the Clause will be in every case onerous and in many cases most unjust to tin; small men. Because of that I support the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade turned to one of my hon. Friends and said, "You do not understand the Bill, even if you have read it" He then proceeded to say, "No doubt it is a difficult Bill to understand. This is only a short Bill. Originally the Government had a very long Bill, with all sorts of details in it," giving us to understand that if we had those details we should probably understand this Bill better. That is not the way to deal with this Committee. If in that Bill there are details which would enable us to understand a Sub-section of this kind, we ought to have that Bill. On a point of Order. I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, whether the President of the Board of Trade having alluded to another Bill, this Committed would not be justified in demanding that that Paper should be laid on the Table of the House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E, Cornwall): I would ask the hon. Member to repeat his point.

Sir S. HOARE: The President of the Board of Trade said to nay hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills) that the original idea of the Government was to introduce a long Bill, and that that Bill was in existence with a number of details, without which it is practically impossible for many hon. Members, like myself, to understand what really is the Government machinery.

Sir G. HEWART: Do I understand the hon. Member was saying what the President of the Board of Trade said? Is it suggested that the President of the Board of Trade said that? [HON. MEMBERS. "Yes!"] And is it suggested that my right hon. Friend said that without that Bill this Bill could not be understood?

Major HILLS: He said it would be very difficult to understand it.

Sir S. HOARE: The President of the Board of Trade said that there was a long Bill with a great many details in it, and the only conclusion we could reasonably take upon that is that if we had the longer Bill we could understand this Bill better. I think this Committee ought to-have that Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of opinion, not a matter of order.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a Rule of the House that if Ministers refer to a document it is incumbent upon them to lay that document on the Table?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: it is a question of interpretation of what the President of the Board of Trade said.

Mr. T. SHAW: I am going to vote for this paragraph as it stands. The assumption held below the Gangway opposite is that the Board of Trade is likely to conduct a vigorous campaign against the small shopkeeper and leave the big man alone. My fear is that the Board of Trade will not; be half active enough, either against the large man or the small man. Certainly my fears do not run in the direction that either class of profiteers will be unduly harassed by the. Board of Trade. I shall vote for the paragraph because I see nothing in it which is at all unreasonable. We have first the statement that complaints are to be received and investigated, both as to wholesale and retail prices. I cannot see anything unreasonable in that. I do not see anything unreasonable in the statement that a price should be declared which would yield a reasonable profit. I do not see anything unreasonable in requiring a seller to repay to the complainant any amount which has been paid in excess of such price. Nor can I see anything unreasonable in the prevision that follows. This is the very soul of the Bill. You cannot fix prices, retail and wholesale, for everything—surely no man in this Committee claims that that is possible—but you can make provision that where complaints are made they shall be heard, whether on a large or small scale, and this part of the Clause gives that power. We have heard a great deal about the small trader being harassed. May I suggest that the worst of all profiteers can be found among the smallest traders, and that in the poorest localities there are small traders who are profiteers beside whom even shipping rings and the rest fade into insignificance? It is essential that power should be held by the Board of Trade to deal with men who trade on the very poorest of the poor. As I read the Clause, it gives power to the Board of Trade to deal with the big and small men alike; it gives
no power that is unreasonable, and consequently I shall vote for it as it appears in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sir A. YEO: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "complaints" ["to receive and investigate complaints"], to insert tins words "on oath."
Having had some experience in dealing with these cases in local Courts, one is bound to say that very often a good deal of perjury is committed, wilfully and deliberately, in order to deceive the Court and prevent it coming to a right decision. In order to deal with that matter, I move tins Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: I hope my hon. Friend's view is a little pessimistic. I quite recognise that there may be cases in which it is desirable to have the protection of an oath, and I hope I shall be meeting what he really desires it at the end of Sub-section (5) I should be willing to move to insert some such words as these: "The Board of Trade shall have power to require any person appearing before them under this Act to give evidence on oath, and shall have power to authorise any person to administer an oath for that purpose."

Sir A. YEO: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I do not, think that quite meets the point which is contained in the Amendment. As I take it the hon. Member (Sir A. Yeo) means that the complaint is a genuine, a proper, and a fully authenticated complaint and a thing that ought to be taken notice of by the tribunal. What we want the Board of Trade to do under this Sub-section is to receive and investigate properly authenticated complaints about which there can be no dubiety, not malicious, blackmailing, frivolous complaints, but complaints which arc in substance and in fact such as to receive investigation at the hands of the central tribunal, and therefore I lo not think what has been proposed by the Attorney-General quite meets what was in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Sir A. YEO: if a person brings a case before the tribunal or the local magistracy we put him on his oath and it is up to him to prove it. You cannot investigate until you have the case before the Court.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, to leave out the words
a profit is being or has been made or sought on the sale of the article (whether wholesale or retail) which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and on any such complaint they may by Order, after hearing the parties,—
(i) declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; and
(ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price; or
(iii) require the complainant to purchase the article at such price,"
and to insert instead thereof the words
prices are being charged either wholesale or retail which are, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence the Board may either dismiss the complaint or reduce the price to one yielding a fair and reasonable profit, in which case, it payment has already been made, the Board may either order the seller to refund the difference to the buyer.
The Bill has been very hastily drafted, and does not in many of its Clauses make its meaning clear. Tile object of the Amendment is not to alter any principle of the Bill, but to try to make more clear its intentions and to put the options of the Board of Trade in their proper sequence. The Board of Trade is presented with three options and an alternative. May I point out how very confusing it is and how indefinite the wording is? To give one example, it is, I believe, impossible to say from the Bill as printed whether it is retrospective or not—whether its operation commences from the date of the passing of the Act or goes back a number of years. The wording is that the Board of Trade is
to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being or has been made or sought.
I do not think anyone could say whether that is retrospective or not. I do not suppose for a moment that the Bill is intended to go back, but the Government should tell us frankly whether it is or whether it is intended to be for a future period. In my Amendment I have used the words "Prices are being charged which are, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable" That makes it quite clear that it applies to the present time, and does not go back retrospectively an unlimited number of years. There are a good many other points covered by the Amendment. I do not want to repeat criticisms ad nauseam, but I would ask the Attorney-General if he thinks the words in the Bill, as printed, are so much better than mine that he intends to oppose my Amendment?
If he has any valid argument to show that the words of the Bill are better than mine. I may be allowed to explain why I press it.

Sir G. HEW ART: The lion. Member has thought fit to make a criticism on the drafting of the Bill. No criticism is more easy to make and it has this advantage, that the gentleman whose skill is being pronounced upon is not able to answer for himself.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I endeavoured not to make that criticism. I said I did not intend to repeat the many criticisms which have been delivered ad nauseam.

Sir G. HEWART: One way of saying one does not intend to repeat, is to repeat by saying those words. Whatever may be the point, and there may have been none, of that observation, I have no fault to find at all with the drafting of the Bill. I saw it for the first time when it had been completely drafted. I had no part or lot in it and therefore can speak with great impartiality. The subject matter with which the Bill deals is undoubtedly difficult and the only modes of handling the subject are modes which involve great difficulty. If I may say a word for the gentleman who cannot speak for himself I think that the draftsman of this Bill has performed his task with singular care and skill. What is proposed in this Amendment I It is not to alter any point of substance but it really is a proposal to substitute different and better words to accomplish the very purpose which is sought to be accomplished by the provision in the Bill. What are the words which the Bill contains? The Board of Trade is
to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being or has been made.
It is suggested that a doubt arises there whether this Bill is to be retrospective. Of course, no Statute which is a penal Statute could possibly be retrospective unless it contains the clearest possible words to that effect. If there is any doubt upon that matter we shall be quite ready to insert words to put it beyond the region of doubt.

Mr. HURD: That is done in the next Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes) to insert "since the passing of this Act."

Sir G. HEWART: That is the next Amendment. The Amendment is quite superfluous. It is inconceivable, it is beyond parallel that a penal Statute can make something an offence which was not
an offence before the Bill was passed unless it contains specific provision to that effect. The next words in the Bill are "has been made or sought." What are the words which my hon. Friend suggests? He suggests the word "charged." "Charged" is an ambiguous term. The payment may have been made or may not have been made. I think the draftsman was right when he used the words "has been made or sought." The charge has been successfully made or the bargain has been sought to be made. I should have thought the words of the Bill were perfectly plain and free from ambiguity. The Bill proceeds" on the sale of the article (whether wholesale or retail)" That is substantially what the hon. Member says. He uses the words "either wholesale or retail" The Bill goes on "which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable." The Amendment says, "Which are, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable." There is no variation.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: I have endeavoured to follow the wording of the Bill.

Sir G. HEWART: Quite so! I am trying to see what is the improvement Now I come to the alternative. The wording of the Bill continues
and on any such complaint they may by Order, after hearing the parties,
do certain things. In the first place, they may
declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit and

(ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price; or
(iii) require the complainant to purchase the article at such price."
How does the Amendment deal with that? It passes all these three alternatives, or, rather, so far as it deals with, them, it does so in one undivided sentence, which says
after hearing the parties and considering the evidence the Board may either dismiss the complaint or reduce the price to one yielding a. fair and reasonable profit, in which case, if payment has already been made, the Board may either order the seller to refund the difference to the buyer.
The Amendment leaves out the third alternative—
require the complainant to purchase the article at such price
I seriously submit that when one compares the words of the Amendment with the words of the draft it is evident that the words of the draft are the best.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: A Back Bench Member is at great disadvantage in arguing points of this sort with the Attorney-General. I do not think the Attorney-General was as conciliatory as he might have been. He crititicises the fact that I had thought it necessary to make it clear that this Act should not be retrospective, and yet he pointed out that the President of the Board of Trade had in the very next Amendment done exactly what I was seeking to do. If it was unnecessary for me, without knowing that the President of the Board of Trade was going to put in that Amendment, it is, surely, unnecessary for the President of the Board of Trade to put it in. Therefore, I think the Attorney-General's criticism is really upon his own colleague. There are certain points of my Amendment which are similar to those in the Bill. As far as possible I have followed the wording of the Bill, and I do not think that should be made a matter for opprobrium. If, as the Attorney-General has said, the draftsman has done his work very well, surely that is a justification for following that part of the Bill as closely as possible, which I did. Then we come to the point in the Bill which says that the Board of Trade is to hear the parties. A few lines higher up it points out that the Board of Trade may call for and take documentary and other evidence. Therefore, in paragraph (b), where it says "after hearing the parties," I submit the words "and after considering the evidence" ought to be inserted. It is quite clear from the preceding paragraph that it is intended to call evidence. The next point is that in the Bill the first alternative put before the Board of Trade is to "declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit." What I say, first, is that the Board of Trade should consider the evidence, and after considering the evidence should decide whether to dismiss the complaint or whether to go forward with the case. If they dismiss the complaint that would be the end of the matter; the machinery would come to an end. But if they considered that there was substance in the complaint they would come to the next point, which would be to reduce the price. The next paragraph requires the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, it is quite possible that the goods may or may
not have been paid for. If they had not been paid for there would be no excess of payment. In view of that, I have put in what I consider a very businesslike and almost legal definition: "If payment has already been made, the Board may either order the seller to refund the difference to the buyer." Then it could follow the words of the Bill, "or may in lieu of maintaining such order, etc." There is a difference between verbiage which is difficult to understand by the people and verbiage which is perfectly clear and straight forward, and which can be understood. We have been reminded that 24,000,000 people in this country are fed by the small shopkeeper. That means that there are 24,000,000 people who need to understand this Bill. For that reason I think it most important that this Bill should not be confused, and my sole object has been to make it as plain as possible in ordinary English language.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I hope that my hon. Friend is going to press his Amendment. Sub-section (b) says, "a profit is being or has been made or sought." What is the meaning of the word "sought"? If a man puts a ticket on a suit of clothes in a shop window, does that come under the word "sought"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I may remind the Committee that there is an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "or sought." The Amendment before the Committee at the present moment is as to the best form of wording to carry out an agreed object, and it would be better for the Committee to keep as far as possible to that point and not to go into a question which may be raised by subsequent Amendments.

Mr. JONES: I bow to your knowledge of the Rules of the House of Commons, but this Amendment is to leave out the words from "that" to the end of (iii). If these words are left out, the word to which I am objecting, "sought," goes. Therefore, I suggest that I am entitled to discuss this point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question which I am about to put from the Chair is that the words down to "been" stand part.

Mr. JONES: The proposal is to leave out all these words.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not a ruling which I could not perhaps enforce, but I think that the Committee would do well to act on my suggestion. The question put from the Chair will safeguard the other portions of the Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, after the word "been," to insert the words "since the passing of this Act."
The object of this Amendment is to remove any doubt in the mind of the popular reader of the Bill, and not because there is any necessity, so that it will be clear that it is not intended to refer to transactions which took place before the passing of the Act.

Mr. T. SHAW: On a point of Order. I handed in a manuscript Amendment to the Clause. If this Amendment is carried, will my manuscript Amendment be ruled out of order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment handed in by the hon. Member has nothing to do with this Amendment, and when it comes on I will decide whether it is in order.

Major GREAME: My whole object in criticising this Bill is to get it into a condition in which its scope and effect will be quite clear on the face of it. I do not know whether I am going to be successful in that or not, but I must assume for present purposes that the Bill is going through in its present form, under which practically the whole scope of the Bill will be dealt with by Regulations of the President of the Board. of Trade and the Food Controller. If that is so, the unfortunate public are going to be left in the position that though they know that they will not be guilty of an offence for anything done before the Bill passes, they will not know what is the offence with which they are to be charged until Regulations arc made by the President of the Board of Trade and the Food Controller. It is only reasonable in the interests of those who are to come under the Bill (if the Bill itself is not to be made clear, as it should be made clear, and as I hope before the early hours of the morning it will be made clear), that the Attorney-General should give us some assurance, which I would accept at once, that no Regulations will be retrospective, if the scope of the offence is fixed by
Regulation the person who may be charged should know that the Regulation is not to be made retrospective.

Sir G. HEWART: I am not quite sure that I appreciate fully the meaning of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pub forward. As I understand it is this, that an assurance is desired that there is nothing in the Regulations which' can be made which tends to make that an offence which was not an offence before the passing of the Act,

Major GREAME: No, the point is this. I feel perfectly convinced that, in the regulations which the Board of Trade issue, they will have to give some dear indication to the tribunal as to what is going to be the line in deciding what is an unreasonable profit. In order that the man who is being charged may know what he is charged with, that definition has got to be stated, and therefore I sub-suit that any offence that is defined by regulation ought to date from the date on which the regulations are published.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am going to oppose the Amendment of the Attorney-General. There is little in this Bill that commends itself to this House or to the country, as I think the Government will have an opportunity of learning very shortly. But there was a chance under it of getting at the big trusts and combines and making them disgorge. Now, to my horror and amazement, I find that there is to be no such chance at all, and that they are to be left to enjoy the enormous profits which they have made, especially since the Armistice. It is the international combinations that I hope we shall be able to get at under a better Bill presently, perhaps under a different Government. They have made inordinate profits, and we have no means of making them disgorge. I think that this Amendment vitiates one of the few promises that the Bill held out.

Mr. T. SHAW: I want to oppose the Amendment because it will inevitably rule out an Amendment I put down for the deliberate purpose of making the Act retrospective in certain respects. I heard what the Attorney-General said about the law, and no doubt his version of what the law has always been is perfectly correct. But this Bill is dealing with an abnormal state of affairs, and it is perfectly
reasonable to expect that if you can produce the case of an abnormal state of affairs you ought to have a chance of inserting a Clause dealing with that state of affairs. I desire to have an addition made to the Clause which will make; it the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to bring before the Board of Trade for the purposes of this Act all cases which have come to the notice of the Department of prices which he considers unreasonable—prices which have been charged to Government Departments by contractors and others during the War. I want, in a word, to make those people disgorge who robbed the Government, and, through the Government, robbed the country. I think robbery is not too strong a word in view of the evidence given before the National Expenditure and Public Accounts Select Committees. I am inclined to think that I shall have the House with me when I say that there have been cases in which it has been plain that the country has been unmercifully bled by contractors and others during the War. I say nothing of things that I am afraid took place as the result of that robbery. I merely say that in this abnormal state of affairs I believe that the ordinary custom of English law may well be altered, that the War profiteer should finally be brought to book, and that the country should enter as far as it can into its own. I know that claims may be made by those who profiteered during the War that they were ignorant of the conditions and of what they were doing. That, to me, is no excuse whatever. I do not want to labour matters. The Report of the Committees are there. What went on is common knowledge. I hope that this Amendment will be defeated, because if it is carried we shall have absolutely no chance under this Bill of getting at the people I want to reach—people who should pay back to the country the money which they took in the day of the country's emergency.

Mr. A. SHAW: I think the hon. Member fell into a cardinal error. If this Amendment is rejected it will make no difference whatever to the legal effect of the Bill. As the Attorney-General so well and clearly said, the effect of the Bill is that no individual under this or any other Act can be prosecuted for an act which was. not a crime at the time it was committed. I think that is also an answer to my hon. Friend behind me (Major Lloyd Greame).

Mr. T. SHAW: If the Clause is carried it will mean the ruling out of my Amendment, which would put into the Bill the powers I seek.

Mr. A. SHAW: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment will be very excellent, but he has to consider on its merits the particular Amendment now before the House, and he is the unfortunate victim of a system by which excellent; Amendments may possibly never be discussed at all and the decision is given to others. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Hendon said, I think he is rather too optimistic, because he apparently looks forward to the time when Regulations will be issued by the Board of Trade which will contain, among other things, a definition of profiteering. I am told that some promise bearing that interpretation was given by the President of the Board of Trade on the Committee stage.

Major GREAME: Before the Select Committee.

Mr. A. SHAW: If that is so, it is necessary for the House to be absolutely certain at this stage that the crime which would then be denned by the Government in a Departmental Order should not involve the antedating of an Act as a crime, when under the ordinary law it would not be a crime at all. I think, therefore, that my hon. Friend is somewhat too optimistic. if the President of the Board of Trade was correct when he told the Select Committee that he had in his mind a scheme for such Regulations, then I think the Government owe it to the House to say at this stage what is their definition of the crime of profiteering. If they have not in their mind now, after a considerable number of days of thought, any concise definition which they can give to the country and to the tribunals, then I think the House is certainly justified in exercising the greatest possible care in dealing with the Amendment. It certainly does appear to me, and I think to many hon. Members, that one of the cardinal flaws of the Act is that we really do not know from begining to end what we are dealing with. The ground gives way under our feet at every step. What is profiteering, and frank profiteering, in one circumstance, may not be profiteering in another, may be really selling at a loss? In this condition of affairs the Government come to the House and they ask the House to give them power to prosecute for crimes which
they cannot define, which after weeks of thought they are unable to define, and about which they cannot give the House the least measure of guidance. Therefore, although I do not agree with my hon. Friend (Major Lloyd Greame) on the merits of this particular Amendment, I agree with him in the gist of what he has said, and I would, with him, appeal to the Government to give us some further guidance as to what really is the crime with which this Bill deals, and to tell us whether, under the Regulations on which all seems to hang, a definition of profiteering will be given and definite guidance given to the tribunals all over the country. If this goes to a Division, I shall certainly support the Government; but I would suggest to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. Shaw) that the position is adequately safeguarded by the general character of the law, to which the Attorney-General has referred, and I would ask hon. Members not to press their opposition. My hon. Friend said he does not want the Clause. I dare say he does not. Nobody wants it except the Attorney-General, and he wants the Clause simply because the ordinary person outside, who is presumed to be an exceedingly ignorant person, incapable of understanding the law—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. A. SHAW: I was dealing with the specific evidence of the Attorney-General that it was necessary to insert these words, not to alter the scope of the character of the Clause, but simply to prevent misunderstanding by people outside as to what is the actual effect of the Bill.

Mr. HOLMES: As a member of the Select Committee, may I say that the President of the Board of Trade gave us to understand that something was to be done with regard to profiteering in the past. He said, speaking from recollection, that a plan had been considered which could not be mentioned at the moment, but that something was going to be done. No-doubt people who have been profiteering have been very uncomfortable, but now that the Attorney-General moves that the Bill shall only apply after its passing he practically says to those people, "Do not worry. You have got your money, and we have taken some of it in Excess Profits Taxes, but nothing more will be said about it, and be careful for the future."

Sir G. HEWART: I am sorry my hon. Friend does not wish to make a false point. This Amendment does not say that, or say anything at all, and does not alter the Bill.

Mr. HOLMES: What is the object of the Government suggesting an Amendment if it does not alter the Bill?

Sir G. HEWART: As I explained previously, in order to make it clear to that nebulous person the man in the street.

Mr. HOLMES: I am afraid the effect will be, as I have suggested, that people will come to the conclusion that the profiteer is not going to be punished, because this Bill is only to apply after its passing.

Mr. BRIANT: I understand that the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Shaw) will be ruled out of order if this Amendment is carried. That is a sufficient reason for me to vote against this Amendment, because there is no doubt that the country has had to pay many millions of money when it was at a time of stress and strain, and that was a crime against the country for which those who committed it ought to be punished. Whatever may be the merits of this Amendment, there should be an opportunity of considering the action of those people who took those millions, and for that reason I shall vote against this Amendment.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: One fundamental principle of our legislation is that only in very rare cases is anything ever made retrospective. The Attorney-General's view is that the Bill is not so now. I suggested, and I was the first to do so, in the columns of the London Press, a totally different method of dealing with the people who have been profiteering, and that was by way of a levy for the purpose of paying the cost of the War on those people who had amassed large fortunes during the war period. Such a levy would go to the State, whereas if this Bill were made retrospective the money would only go from A to B, and it would be retrospectively making a man a criminal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It would require an investigation into the past.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Let us get on with the present and the future, or we will get back into the Garden of Eden and the apple before we finish. When I saw this
Bill and heard the arguments I thought at first I had drifted into some place where everybody was not in the full possession of his senses. It is the most extraordinary Bill ever put up, but let us try not to make it unreasonable. I have advocated the principle of lightening the burden of taxation on the rest of the community by a levy on those gentlemen who managed owing to war circumstances to amass large fortunes. Some of them have become great landowners, in the hope that they may become English country gentlemen. It takes three generations, as a rule, to do so, and I think in the case of the war profiteer it will take at least five. My proposal would be fair, and merely a matter of taxation. If this Amendment were not carried, and if the Bill were made retrospective, it would lead to endless trouble and endless inquiry and investigation. The business of the country has got to goon, and we cannot be all continuously employed in going into the colossal series of small investigations which would result. We have heard a great deal about profiteering in food and other comestibles, but there is one kind of profiteering which has not been mentioned, and that is that which went on in milliners' and drapers' shops. When they raised their prices they were always gladly paid, and it was there that a large portion of the munition worker's-wages went. I think it would have been more important and more for the good of the community if the Government had appointed a clothing controller instead of a drink controller. I am perfectly serious in. making that statement. There were many women who spent their husbands' earnings on personal adornment, and many women suffered through the lure of dress as men suffered through the lure of drink. If Lord D' Abernon's efforts had been directed to this question, he could probably have saved atremendous amount of money to the community. I protest against any idea of making a thing like this restrospective. It will be a troublesome enough Bill and a dangerous enough Bill to work as it is. You have got to make sure that you do not cut off your source of supply and discourage the small producer. I believe that a great deal of the profiteering results from the fact that the trading is carried on in shops instead of in markets, where the producer and consumer could meet. Once you solved that problem you would solve almost wholly the social problem, since you would eliminate
the middleman. The average corporation or town council is composed of shop keepers who discourage markets because they compete with the shops. If you could once get back to marketing direct between producer and consumer you would have solved a great part of the question of profiteering, at all events in provisions. We should do all we can to induce

The CHAIRMAN: (Mr. Whitley): The ion. Member is becoming much too general in his remarks.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I protest against this attempt to make the Bill retrospective, because it is a fundamental principle of our law that you cannot convict a man of a crime that was not a crime at the tune it was committed. If you do so you are tearing up the -whole Constitution, and rights for which this country has fought for about a thousand years.

Question put: "That those words be; there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 53.

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gregory, Horman
Parker, James


Ainswortin, Captain C.
Grecton, Colonel John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf
Griggs, Sir Peter
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Baird, John Lawrence
Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)
Perring, William George


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Hailwood, A.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Barnett, Major Richard W. :
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Pran, John William


Barnston, Major Harry
Henry, Denis s. (Londonderry, S.)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward 
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Purchase, H. G.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes);
Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)
Rae, H. Norman


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Raeourn, Sir William


Birchall, Major J. D.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Raper, A. Baldwin


Blades, Sir George R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Blair, Major Reginald:
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Remer, J. B.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend


Briggs, Harold
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Broad, Thomas Tucker 
Hurst, Major G. B.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radner)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Inskip, T. W. H.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A. 
Jesson, C.
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Jodrell, N. P.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Johnson, L. S.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Campion, Col. W. R.
Johnstone, J.
Seddon, J. A.


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John


Carr, W. T.
Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Casey, T. W.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Kidd, James
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Knights, Captain H.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Larmor, Sir J.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Clough, R.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Stevens, Marshall


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Lloyd, George Butler
Stewart, Gershom


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Locker-Lampion, Com. O (Hunt'don)
Strauss. Edward Anthony


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sugden, W. H.


Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)
Lorden, John William
Sutherland, Sir William


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Lort-Williams, J.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead


Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Lowe, Sip F. W.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Townley, Maximilan G.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
McMicklng, Major Gilbert
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dawes, J. A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Vickers, D.


Dennis, J. W.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Du Pre. Colonel W. B.
Mitchell, William Lane-
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Forestier-Walker, L,
Murray, Major C.D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Geddes, Rt Hen. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Nall, Major Joseph
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S.D. (Exeter)



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Nield, Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Norris, Sir Henry G.
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Oman, C. W. C.



NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Hinds, John
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Briant, F.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bromfield, W.
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Spencer, George A.


Cape, Tom
Kenyon, Barnet
Spcor, B. G.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kiley, James Daniel
Swan, J. E. C.


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Murray, Dr. D. (Western isles)
Wignall, James


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Onions, Alfred
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C)


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)



Finney, Samuel
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Grundy, T. W.
Holmes and Mr. Limn.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rowlands, James



Question put, and agreed to

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amend ment is that of the lion, and gallant Member for Hull—to leave out paragraph (iii).

Lieut.- Commander KEN WORTHY: I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words or sought" in paragraph (b).

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment I call is that to leave out paragraph (iii). Under the Standing Order I have power to select: in that way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Shall I not be able to move the first one?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (iii) This is the first time the "Kangaroo" has been exercised on me. Under this paragraph you "require the complainant to purchase the article at such price." How can you make a man buy something he does not want to buy? It is altogether vague, and quite in line with this extra ordinary Bill. New offences are brought in. It is an offence now to make a profit on a transaction, and now a new crime is created, and if you do not buy something you will be punished. Really I do not know what we have fought the War for, if the only result is that we do not know what we may do in business, and what crimes we are committing until we are, called before some tribunal and found guilty.;

Sir G. HEWART: Of course, the meaning of this decision is perfectly clear to anyone who desires to understand it. The complaint may be that profit has been I made, or profit has been sought, but it is important that the complaint should be sincere. It therefore provides that the
tribunal, Board of Trade, or whoever looks into the matter, shall say whether a reasonable price is asked. In the one alternative the man has paid too much. In that case, the seller has to repay him the difference. In the other alternative he has not bought, and he has to buy at a reasonable price,

Mr. HOLMES: The point I would like to pat-to the Attorney-General is this: The Bill says a complaint may be made that the price sought is too much. Let us assume that a woman goes into a, shop and wants to buy a dress. The price asked appears to her to be exorbitant, and, instead of buying the dress, she lodges a complaint. It will take a long time probably before that complaint is heard. In the meantime, she has bought a dress somewhere else, and yet the Bill says that this woman who, on public grounds, brings a complaint against the shopkeeper for asking an excessive price, may be compelled two or three months afterwards to buy a dress she no longer wants, at a price settled by the tribunal. Surely that is absurd.

Mr. INSKIP: I want to ask another question. Supposing a man goes to a corn, merchant at one of the Exchanges, and asks the price of wheat or barley, and, according to the price quoted, he is prepared to buy a large or small parcel, and an excessive price is asked, how much wheat or barley is comprehended in the expression "the article"? What sort of an Order may be made upon a man who has not made up his mind how much he is going to buy, but wants to know what the price is going to be? I do not see how in such a case an Order could be made.

Sir G. HEWART: I am quite sure it needs little ingenuity to imagine any number of possible cases under this Bill or
any Bill. I call attention to one word. It is "may," not "shall." In the case supposed it would be impossible to make the Order.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think the power sought here is certainly one we ought not to grant. I quite agree that where a complaint has been improperly made, the person making the complaint ought to be made to pay the costs. But to give the power to enforce completion of contract in this way is quite a different matter. The man may have merely asked the price. It may be very much against the interests or the desire of the would-be seller to deliver these goods, but the Board of Trade official, or, in this case, one of the enthusiastic members of the tribunal, may insist that the complainant purchases the article. To require the complainant to purchase the article at such a price is an absolutely new thing. The justice of the whole case would be fully met, I suggest, by making the complainant who is found to be wrong pay the costs. If it cannot be done here, I suggest it can be done on Report.

Sir G. HEWART: I am very anxious to meet the reasonable wishes of the Committee. The horrible case has been suggested to me that a lady might buy a hat, the investigation might take three months, in which time the lady's hat would be hopelessly out of fashion. The case is irresistible. The Government will with draw the paragraph, and consider before Report as to making suitable provision to provide for unnecessary or unsuccessful complaints.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words
or may, in lieu of making such Order, where they think the circumstances of the case so require, take proceedings against the seller before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the price charged or demanded by the seller is such as to yield to him a profit which is, in view of all the" circumstances, unreasonable, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
and to insert instead thereof
(3) If, as a result of any investigation undertaken on their own initiative or on complaint made to them, it appears to the Board of Trade that the circumstances so require, the Board shall take proceedings against the seller before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the price
charged or demanded about which the complaint was made or the price discovered at the investigation to have been charged or demanded was such as to yield a profit which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, the seller shall be liable on summary conviction to a. fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine.
What is proposed in the Amendment is to leave out the words at the end of paragraph (b), and to insert as a substantive Sub-clause the provision which I have moved. The point of substance which differentiates this proposal from that in the Bill is that, instead of making these proceedings an alternative, they make it possible for the Board of Trade to commence such proceedings, if, on investigation, the first or second time, the circumstances seem to require it. It has been said more than once in the course of discussion that there was in this Bill no definition of the offence which the Bill in intended to meet. It is further suggested that, in the Regulations to be made under this Act, it would be proper to define the offence. The speakers themselves showed the impossibility of making a precise definition. It was allowed that what in some circumstances would be profiteering might not be in other circumstances. It is precisely for that reason, amongst others, that a definition is impossible. What does this provision profess to do? To prevent that which, in all the circumstances of the case, is an unusual profit. Profit may vary from time to time and from place to place. It is a question of fact in each case and in all the circumstances of the case. I suggest that in this new Sub-clause the Committee gets as near a definition as the circumstances permit: I am not saying it is a definition, but that it is as near as you can get in such a case. The provision reads: where
it is found that the price charged or demanded about which the complaint is made or the price discovered at the investigation to have been charged or demanded, was such as to yield a profit which is in all the circumstances unreasonable.
I do not say that is a definition, but if a person, not for controversial purposes, but with a desire to arrive at the truth of the matter seeks a description of what is or could be made an offence, these words, I think, are sufficient to satisfy his curiosity.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I have no objection at all to the substitution of this new Sub-section for that which appears
in the Bill, but I want to make this one point. In paragraph (b)of the Clause we have passed the words
that a profit is being, or has been, made or 'sought' on the sale of an article.
In this Sub-clause, as it is now proposed, we are asked to accept the words,
to have been charged or demanded.
Has the word "demanded" the same significance as "sought" or has it a different meaning? I suggest to the Attorney-General it is desirable to have the same wording right throughout this measure in order to save any misapprehension.

Sir G. HEWART: I will later propose in Amendment to substitute the word "sought" for the word "demanded" which will meet the case of the hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How. will this affect my Amendment, Mr. Whitley, to leave out the words "or demanded?" I offered the word "sought," and now for exactly tine same reason I wish to offer the words "or demanded."

The CHAIRMAN: We had better deal with the question before the Committee, and wait till we come to that.

Mr. WIGNALL: I would like to ask the Attorney-General why it is that six months imprisonment in the original proposal has been altered to three month imprisonment in the present Amendment? Is it because the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that six months is too much, or is it an oversight on the part of the printer because six months has been carried throughout the whole of the War?

Sir G. HEWART: It is not an oversight on the part of the printer, but if my hon. Friend will kindly look at the Bill he will see that the penalties contemplated are a fine of £200 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both imprisonment and fine. We felt that three months was sufficient, but that the latter alternative should be given.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I as whether it is not a correct reading of the position in which the Committee finds itself that if we once agree to leave out the words proposed then we shall have before us the words the Government propose to substitute to as they now appear on the Paper? If the Committee comes to the conclusion that on the whole this general proposition might be well substituted for the one in
the Bill, we should then be able to deal with the new Government proposal as amended. I observe the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member later would come, as indicated, in this new proposal quite as readily as in the original words. I was going to suggest that this might be a little more businesslike way of dealing with the matter. It would assist us.

Sir E. WILD: Before you rule, Mr. Whitley, on that point, I should like to begin my few observations by asking your ruling on another matter. I want to oppose this penal Clause altogether. I do not want it, whether in the new or the old form. Docs it matter whether we oppose it on the old or the new form

The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee will permit me to get rid of the words in the Bill, then I shall propose the subsequent words which are capable of Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. HOLMES: It appears to mo that the procedure will be that anyone can lodge a complaint which will be heard by a local committee. If it is a bad ease the local committee will declare the price and require the seller to repay a certain amount, but if it is a really bad case the local committee may send it on to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the seller may be punished with a fine or imprisonment, but the purchaser will get nothing back in that case. I wish to ask whether that is so. Am I correct in saying that if a man is only slightly swindled he will get his money back, but if he is badly swindled ho will get nothing back?

Sir A. GEDDES: This Amendment was prepared to meet the objection which has just been put by the hon. Member. Unless the local committee say they do not propose to do anything but send the case they are not restricted, and they can do that.

Mr. JONES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "demanded" ["or demanded about the complaint was made"], and to insert instead thereof the word "sought."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This proposal is in line with the Amendment I intended to move originally. My reason for moving the omission of these words was not that the word "sought" should be substituted for "demanded," but in order to leave out this hypothetical case of a crime that was not committed. The Bill is going to lead to enough heartburning and ruin without having any hypothetical cases. It is quite enough to prove that a man has overcharged, and I think we shall be extremely ill-advised if we are going to start persecuting the man who simply asks a price. The whole thing is panic legislation, and this is a panic demand made without understanding the circumstances. It is bad enough to leave the Bill as it is without adding this hypothetical and almost imaginary crime.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: Leave out the word "demanded" ["demanded was such as to yield a profit"], and insert instead thereof the word "sought."—[Mr. Kennedy Jones.]

Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "a" ["yield a profit"], to insert the words "rate of."
This is an honest attempt to improve the Bill by providing some sort of fixed idea as to the offence instead of leaving it in the vague form which the Attorney-General says it must be left in. We had a considerable argument on the Second Reading, and the Minister of Labour made considerable play about this point, and he said if it was a gross offence hon. Members must have a pretty shrewd idea what it was, and that anybody could give a definition of it by the exercise of a little common-sense. The same question arose when this House was tasked to pass a measure taxing luxuries. We all think we know what a luxury is, but when we come to define it we find it impossible. We charged the Government with extravagance, find we all know, and the Government know, what is meant by extravagance, although it is difficult to define. But I defy anybody to convict a man, with due regard to liberty, of being extravagant. It depends upon the standards you adopt. Burke once said:
A large and liberal construction in ascertaining offences and a discretionary power in
punishing them is a monster in jurisprudence and the liberty of the subject will be subverted by it.
I think those words are apposite to the proposal of the Government. The Minister for Labour gave two illustrations as to the use of the word "reasonable" in criminal and civil law. There is an. exceedingly accurate standard by which you can form an estimate of what is reasonable. Take the words "reasonable care in civil-law." Everybody knows what an ordinary man is expected to do under such circumstances. Reasonable is used with reference to what is familiar as the ordinary care which an ordinary person uses. Similarly in the case of criminal law. The Minister for Labour said the Licensing Act of 1910 made it an offence to give a person more than a reasonable amount of refreshment. The standard by which you judge reasonable refreshment is the amount of refreshment which will not make a person drunk. You have the canon of drunkenness by which to judge the amount of reasonableness. The next illustration which was given was the driving of a motor car at an unreasonable speed. The canon by which you judge the reasonableness or the unreasonableness is whether or not the motor car or vehicle was driven in a manner so as to create a danger. What is the canon by which these tribunals will judge the reasonableness in the case of this Bill? There is no canon at all. Quot homines tot sententice. There is no criterion by which you can fix this reasonableness.
I have made an honest attempt, and I suggest that it is a vast improvement upon the Government's attempt. My suggestion is that if a man is making a profit in excess of the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as himself upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions, then he is committing an offence. You there have a definite standard and everybody in a particular trade can judge for himself. Take, for instance, the case of boots. A pair of boots which the retailer could buy for 7s. 6d. was sold for 9s. 6d., a profit of 2s. He now buys them for 17s. 6d. and he puts on 4s., double the profit which he made before. It is, however, the same rate of profit, and, having regard to the increased cost of running his business, it is not unreasonable that he should make double the profit, although the rate is the same. Supposing
that he added 10s. or 15s., we should all say that lie was committing a crime, and he would know that he was committing a crime, because he would be seeking to make a rate of profit in excess of that which he expected to get before the War when conditions were normal. There would not be any difficulty in any tribunal composed of persons with a fair representation of trading interests saying what was a fair rate of profit in that particular business which was under consideration. Get together a number of persons, some of them in business and some out of business, and ask them to say whether a man has been making a reasonable profit and they may be locked up for days and nights before they ever arrive at any decision, except under compulsion, possibly, of weariness or starvation. Take my words, and you will have a standard to apply.
There is one other argument which I will use in favour of my proposal. The Attorney-General has sought to introduce some sort of equity into this proposal by putting in the words "in view of all the circumstances." I am unfortunate enough to be a lawyer, and I can imagine that no lawyer would have an easier task to perform than to go before these tribunals and urge circumstance after cirsumstance—the number of the man's family, the rent of his house, the amount of his turnover, the loss he was making on other goods; and Heaven knows what might be introduced by a tradesman, let alone a clever lawyer! Really, the tribunal at the end would be so befogged by the circumstances which had been laid before it as to whether or not, in view of all the circumstances, the profit was areasonable one or not, that the very purpose of this Clause would be defeated by the complexity of the considerations which would be laid before them. I earnestly hope that the Committee will see their way to accept some such proposal as I have ventured to make. You will not then have the circumstances brought forward; you will have a simple inquiry as to how much the boot maker and the milliner, or the furniture dealer, made upon the sale of similar articles under pre war conditions. "Was it 20 per cent., 30 per cent., or 35 per cent.? How much more is he now making] Fifty per cent.? One hundred per cent? Convict him out of hand." It will be a simple matter, and will leave the tradesman adequately protected. He had the same standard by [which to judge his conduct. The opera-
tion of these tribunals will be to facilitate the discovery of profiteering, which we are all so anxious to prevent.

Sir A. GEDDES: I know, of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not see the first draft of this Bill, but if he had he would have found in it words very similar to those he has now moved. The reason why we cut them out was that they seemed so grossly unfair in certain cases. You have to remember that these are days of restricted supply These are days when most of our difficulties come from restricted supply. There is, therefore, a shortage in the number of articles dealt in by the vast majority of traders, both wholesale and retail, in this country. If you base your definition of profiteering on a rate of profit which refers to pre war turnover you may be doing a. gross injustice to men or firms who are serving a very useful social purpose. For that reason we discarded a definition on these lines. We think more fair the definition which we have adopted throughout this Bill. There is not the slightest doubt that if the hon. Member's definition were adopted it would possibly draw the net tighter; many, I believe, who will escape under the Bill as it stands would be caught if this definition were in. If we were merely out to secure a punitive measure there would be no objection, but we are not out for that. We want to catch people who are being unreasonable and unfair. If the Committee will study what this Amendment really means they will see that it has in it not only the possibility, but the certainty in these days of restricted supply, of gross injustice, or even of the restriction of necessary supplies. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will not be passed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That sounds all right. But we have to look at the human problem, and see what is actually working amongst the people. One of the real factors we arc seeking is something approaching uniformity of decision in these. matters I will put to my right hon. Friend, by way of illustration, what happened the other day under the Military Service Act. It was quite impossible there, I know, to fix your standard, and that was one of the things which was constantly worrying the authorities. There was such a diversity of decision all over the place and that fact alone gave rise to a great sense of injustice, because in one place
at one end of the county you got decisions completely different from those delivered at the other end of the same county. You never arrived at anything approaching a really normal standard. What is going to happen under the words "in view of all the circumstances of the case"? My hon. and learned Friend, in a speech for which the Committee are indebted to him, did not put the case as a lawyer at all. It was not a piece of special pleading, but dealt with the facts of human life as he knows them in the Courts and as I know them. We know exactly how these things will work. That is why his words carry such weight and conviction. He is speaking from actual knowledge of how the existing machine works in the Courts and how this thing must follow the inevitable channels there. You leave the smaller local tribunals on one side dealing with the words "in view of all the circumstances of the case." Let me put this instance: A tradesman has one customer who has neglected to pay his bill for a long time. When he comes into the shop or office again, the tradesman is going to charge a much higher price to him than he would charge the normal customer who comes in. In that case he is going to get off under these words. But the general public do not follow these things at all. It is only a six months' job under the Bill. It is intended to meet what we hope is only a passing difficulty. I suggest that you must take the risks. The best way to deal with this matter is to lay down some such standard as my hon and learned Friend and his colleagues have done and take the risks of it. You will then get something approaching a standard to which these tribunals will work, and I have no doubt they will do their best to meet it fairly. To leave it with these vague words will lead to gross injustices. Where there has not been injustice but a fair decision, you will, by reason of this, evoke unrest and dissatisfaction and deprive the tribunals of that moral authority without which they cannot carry out their work.

Sir E. WILD: It is not often I find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean), but I consider his speech was a useful contribution to the Debate. We are, on the eve of our own Recess, in the midst of what is nothing but panic legislation. We are proposing to do what I respectfully con-
sider to be an act of the grossest injustice to the whole of the shopkeepers of this country. We are doing it in a perfectly light way, not by means of an Act of Parliament, because no lawyer, not even a human being, can call this thing a Bill—it is simply a manifesto. We are faced with this situation: Here we have come to the crucial point of the whole matter, which is, are we or are we not going to condemn the shopkeepers of this country to the constant harassment of their customers, of tribunals, of the Board of Trade, and of officials? I am one of the very ordinary Members of Parliament, although I happen to be a lawyer. I have received, and we all have received, the most heartrending appeals from the shopkeepers in our Constituencies. May I read just one line as an, illustration, because we have now arrived at the penal part of the matter, and the House of Commons has always been meticulously anxious about the liberties of the subject. This is what he says:
The worst part of the Bill is the indignity to which it subjects the shopkeeper. Shopkeepers have dignity just the same as other folks. The Bill places them at the mercy of every discontented or maliciously inclined person who may care to advertise himself by trying to trap them. Take the case of a small back-street trader who has insulted the neighbourhood by refusing to give them goods on credit. What a chance to get their own back, and what a life for the poor shopkeeper, perhaps a widow struggling along as best she can!
That is an ilustration of what we are doing, and I hope the House of Commons will pause once, twice, and thrice, before it gives its sanction to this Clause in whatever form—and I think the form proposed by my hon. Friend would be preferable to the nebulous form of the Government. If the Government are going to do it, let them do it. They can carry anything by the weight of those who have not listened to the Debate but come in to vote. One realises that Debates are perfectly useless. Here we are dealing wholesale with the liberty of the subject, the thing for which this House has fought. The whole tradition of Parliament is the liberty of the subject. During the War people were contented to put up with all these restrictions, but even under the Defence of the Realm Act you put it in black and white. You may have put it in regulations, but you put it so that a man could know what he was doing. Here you do not even do that. The President of the Board of Trade, in the most unconvincing speech I have ever heard delivered, in introducing the Bill in
a perfunctory manner, said the definition was implicit in the Bill. That is a nice way of dealing with the liberty of the subject. The Attorney-General says you gather the definition because you say "such as to yield a profit which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable." That is the thing for which you are going to try a man, and for which you can give him three months' imprisonment on the very first offence, in addition, if you like, to a fine of £200. I shall certainly advise the shopkeepers of my Constituency to go out of trade for six months and lake a holiday, because it simply means every time you sell an article over the counter—it is worse than Monte Carlo you are gambling against a prosecution. You will have your competitors coining round. You are opening the door to all sorts of conspiracies. We know what the tribunals are in some eases. We know the log-rolling there is. The President of the Board of Trade tells us he is going to delegate the power of prosecution to these petty local tribunals. You will have A, B, and C in Little Puddlington. One man has been rather more successful than another, and the unsuccessful one, perhaps, gets on the tribunal. Perhaps he is a great friend of the local magistrates. I know something about these local benches. It is all very well to speak about them with this air of reverence, but when you come to deal with them what my right lion. Friend says is the truth. Did they not try to get before the tribunal of origin rather than the tribunal of business, because they knew perfectly well that in one they would get fairer treatment than in the other?

Sir D. MACLEAN: It was constantly done.

Sir E. WILD: Take a motor case. In some benches you have never got a chance before the little Jacks-in-office who administer justice. Perhaps a tradesman who is not very friendly—his wife does not call on someone else's wife—you get him on the complaint of someone put up by a local rival. He will go to the shop, ask the price of the goods, will be discontended, and make a complaint to the local tribunal. Then they will go before the tribunal. What does that mean? My right hon. Friends, under the Olympian security of the Treasury Bench, talk about being haled before a bench of magistrates as if it was a mere common, every-day occurrence. Respectable citizens—and shopkeepers are
as respectable as the right hon. Gentleman—are not at all pleased at being dragged into Courts of law, and being subject to the attentions of Mr. A.B. or Mr. C.D., the local magistrates, appointed through some local influence and not because they have any knowledge of the law. That is what we are doing. We are coming here and for the sake of a manifesto, for the sake of letting it be said that we are doing something, for the sake of going away on holiday and letting it be said, "This Coalition Government has dealt with profiteering," we are passing this Bill. Heaven forbid that I should say a word in favour of profiteering! Profiteering is a wicked thing; but, on the other hand, is not the remedy worse than the disease? I only hope that this wretched Bill will die; that it will be discussed with such particularity that the Government will think it wiser to cut the whole business. Is it not perfectly ridiculous, as my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) has said, to have a different standard in one part of the Kingdom and another in another part?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Or in another part of a county.

Sir E. WILD: One standard in one part of a county and another in another part of a county A standard of an undefined offence for which a man can get three months' imprisonment and a £200 fine for a first offence. And that standard is made dependable upon the words "in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable." That depends upon the idiosyncrasies of a particular stipendiary magistrate, who is equally idiosyncratic. The Government can do it if they choose. I did not vote against a Second Reading of the Bill because I did not vote at all. I thought we should be able to make the Bill into something like common sense and common justice to these people. We are not able to do it. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to fix maximum prices, and lie said, "We will do it." I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite at home in commerce. He seems to think that commerce is-like a proposition in Euclid or some piece of scientific analysis. You want a business man to manage these sort of things. You cannot play with the arteries and structure of trade in "the same way in which you dissect at a post-mortem examination. I voted upon the Amendment in favour of a maximum price—although I loathe maximum prices—because I want the wretched
tradesman to know where he is, It does not matter whether you convict him or not. Drag him before his fellow townsmen, and he is a ruined man; he is done for. He is a suspected person. The maximum price is no good to us now. You do this to your tradesmen—the backbone of your country, very largely—because they arc people without a trade union. When I use the words "trade union" I do not mean them in any offensive sense. I invite the Committee, in the interests of freedom of the subject, to carry this Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and then, when this Clause comes to be put as part of the Bill, to vote unanimously against it, and kill the most malicious and iniquitous Bill that was ever brought forward in a moment of panic.

Sir F. LOWE: On a point of Order. I understand that an Amendment has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes) in charge of the Bill to insert certain words in substitution for words in the Bill. Since then an Amendment has been moved to the proposed new words. Now we appear to be discussing the whole Clause and not the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inskip). It seems to me that the only point to be discussed now is whether "unreasonable prices" should be considered to be something different from pre-war prices, or something unreasonable from the present point of view in regard to altered conditions. I submit that we should confine ourselves to this point and dispose of it before deciding on these words which my right hon. Friend proposes to insert in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) raises a point of great magnitude, namely, whether conviction and imprisonment ought to follow on this specified offence or some offence which was in the discretion of some other people, magistrates or others. That is the reason why I have not been attempting to confine the Debate too closely, because it does raise the whole matter.

Sir F. LOWE: It is only a question as to whether a person should be convicted of charging more than what would be a pre-war profit, which is a different question from that which is raised in the proposed new Sub-section. It is a comparatively narrow point, whether it
should depend on pre-war prices or profits or on what was thought unreasonable now.

The CHAIRMAN: That is the point before the Committee. I trust that there will not be a second discussion on the Question, "these words be there inserted."

Major GREAME: The sole object of the lion, and learned Member for Bristol and myself was to get a definite declaration from the Government as to the policy which was going to govern the local authorities in their action, and I submit that it would be convenient if we can discuss that point now.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is raising a point of Order. I have his manuscript Amendment, which is, in other words, almost the same tiling, though not quite, as that which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol.

Major GREAME: It raises a different point.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to put his view on the present occasion.

Sir G. HEWART: It gave me great pleasure to hear the amusing speech of my hon. and learned Friend.[HON. MEMBERS: "Not amusing; serious!"] It gave me great pleasure, then, to hear the amusing and serious speech of my hon. and learned Friend. In approaching this very difficult question, I assume two things. The first is that the Committee sincerely desires to deal, and to deal fairly, with the evil of profiteering. [HON. MEMBERS: "This Bill will not do it!] I shall come to that in a moment. The second assumption I venture to make is that the Committee, for that purpose, desires in proper cases to inflict a suitable punishment on the profiteer. I do not see how that is going to be done under any scheme without invoking the aid of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. It is surely not going to be suggested that the only fair way in which you can deal with the profiteer is by presenting an indictment before a jury at Assizes or at the Old Bailey? I think my hon. and learned Friend takes too gloomy a view of the impartiality and the capacity of magistrates, whether they arc stipendiary or lay. I hope he takes too gloomy a view of the competence of the magistrates' clerk. So far as those criticisms really
have point, they have point in any case in which this House by a Statute proposes to remit a matter to the adjudication of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Taking these two assumptions—first, that we have got to deal with profiteering, and, secondly, that in a proper case we have to punish the profiteer—what comes next? What is the thing that it is desired to discover and to punish, and by punishment to prevent? It is the obtaining, not at some past time, but in the present and in the future, of a profit which is an unreasonable profit. How are you going to define it? Take a simple illustration. A. man goes to a fashionable hotel in order to dine. I do not know what may be the appropriate addition which is made to the price at which the meat enters the kitchen before you came to the price at which it is put upon the dining table. It might be, in the case of a fashionable restaurant with big premises and a large staff, a very large addition, and yet it might be, in the circumstances, a very reasonable addition. Take the sale: of a mutton chop or beefsteak in some totally different place. The addition of that amount of profit would be utterly unreasonable. Exactly the same kind of consideration applies to every article, and it is, therefore, profoundly difficult to express in clear and precise terms something which is really a definition of this ingredient of unreasonableness in profit. Are we, therefore, to abandon the effort? My hon. and learned Friend came to the conclusion that the remedy was worse than the disease. Does that mean that the disease is to go on—that you are to do nothing? I trust not.

Sir E. WILD: I think it is better to abandon the Bill altogether.

Sir G. HEWART: So I understood. If we are to deal with the matter, and if that with which we are to deal is the unreasonable quantity of profit, what is the fairest way of ascertaining it? The method of the Bill is to place the matter before a tribunal, and a tribunal which has been unjustly aspersed, and to direct that tribunal to have regard to all the circumstances of the case and come to the conclusion aye or no whether under those circumstances the profit is unreasonable. My suggestion is, with all the criticism to which it has been subjected, that that is a fair and proper way. In everyone of these cases there would be if the defendant desired an appeal to Quarter
Sessions. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is the same thing!"] Arc we to be told that neither a Court of Quarter Sessions nor a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is fitted to deal with cases of the kind? There might in a proper case be a case stated for the opinion of the High Court. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Bill only lasts for six months!"] If the suggestion is that injustice is going to be done I am pointing out the correctives in order to prevent injustice. If that be so, I suggest that the scheme of the Bill is the best practical way of dealing with an uncommonly difficult subject-matter. It is the difficulty of the subject-matter with which we are confronted. Let me turn to the precise alternative suggested. It is said—and I gather that in more than one quarter there are those who favour it—that a better plan, and a more practical and fairer plan, would be to adopt the Amendment which has been proposed. Let us see what that Amendment would involve. II would involve this, that in every case a man would be liable to conviction if it were proved that the price which he obtained was a price in excess of the fair average—

Mr. INSKIP: It is the rate of profit, which is an entirely different thing from the price of the article. You take the rate of profit on the largely increased value of the article which the tradesman is selling.

Sir G. HEWART: If the rate of profit is in excess of the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as a seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions. That is seriously put forward as an Amendment which will get rid of some element of unfairness in the Bill. Is it not perfectly obvious that upon any inquiry as to whether in a particular transaction the profit actually obtained or sought to be obtained was unreasonable, it would be most relevant for the defendant to show, if he could, that it was not in excess of the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as the seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions? I should be-very far from saying that a man was necessarily guilty of the offence with which this Bill has to do if that was all. It might well be in a particular case he was entitled to get a profit in excess of that, early figure. The point in which this Amendment differs from the proposal of the Bill is not in the sense that it is more
lenient to the defendant but that it is more harsh Every arguments that could be adduced, every fact that could be given in evidence, on behalf of the defendant, if this Amendment were carried, can be adduced or given in evidence under the Bill, but he can go further, and he can say, "Notwithstanding that this rate of profit is in excess of the pre-war rate, I adduce circumstances upon which I ask the Court of profit. "So far from our being more harsh to the shopkeeper than this Amendment proposes, we are more lenient and more tender towards him. If we are going to consider the real problem, which is, What is unreasonable profit? all relevant circumstances must be capable of being given in evidence. Nobody proposes to exclude this, but let us hesitate long before we make this the sole, the conclusive, criterion.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. ACLAND: I would like to argue that, even accepting the argument that we have just heard, there is very much to be said For having a definition which is more definite instead of the vague definition in the Bill. I think it may possibly be that j in certain cases this Amendment, if in inserted, might be taken to be more harsh to the seller than the words which are proposed to be left out, but at any rate under; the words proposed to be put in a man would know where he is, and the fact that the man does not know where he is is the main defect of what we are asked to set up under the Bill. I happen to be a tradesman. I sell cucumbers mainly, and the man who sells my cucumbers for me is very much alarmed as to his position under that Bill. I sell timber also, and I try to make up by profits on my cucumbers what I lose j on my timber. I sell cucumbers at about Id. an inch, and they pay me. My gardener has asked me what his position will be under this Bill, because he can sell cucumbers at that rate as fast as they are produced on account of the very brisk demand of the working men living in the neighbourhood, but he says it is not considered reasonable there that I should make any profit at all. It is considered rather an ungentle manly thing for a landowner to do and he is afraid it will not be considered reasonable that we should make any profit out of our cucumbers, and he does not know, like so many thousands of other people, where he will be if this Bill becomes law. But under the
words proposed to be pat in,' at any rate,, we shall know where we are. We have got to find out what is regarded as the pre-war rate' of profit in the cucumber and tomato trade, which is not a difficult thing to find out. These trades have certain risks, and certain profits are regarded as! reasonable in consideration of all those risks, and if we know that we are simply obtaining the same rate of profit as other I people in the same business earned before I the War, we shall be safe, instead of I having these utterly vague Regulations, which it is so difficult to interpret. The right hon. Gentleman's point about the two men who sold beefsteaks really does not apply. The Amendment, if inserted, would not say that you shall judge everybody the same, and that you shall not make allowance for the fact that a very big man, having a very big hotel, will make a very different rate of profit from the small man having a small business. The Amendment guards against that by referring to a man in the same way of business. Let us take it from another point of view—that of members of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. I happen to be one of them. I was asked to sit on my Petty Sessional Bench the other day, and the invitation was accompanied by a form asking me if I were prepared to give full time to the discharge of the duties. Think what the duties of members of Petty Sessional and other Courts are going to be in interpreting these words about unreasonable profits! It raises up avista of one's time being taken up, and difficulties of carrying out one's duties, which will be quite terrific, and will add a very great strain to the work of the county magistrates, who are already very fully occupied with ordinary county business. Under the Amendment the task would be very much easier. We would have to find out what was a fair rate of profit in that business before the War. The whole thing is turned by the Amendment from being vague, difficult, uncertain, liable to abuse, into a thing which is capable of some certainty and some definition, and I for one am not willing to allow all these Courts to have the task of interpreting the amazingly difficult words the Government ask us to accept. I think it would be much better to adopt the hon. Member's Amendment, and therefore I shall support it if it goes to a Division.

Mr. PERRING: Perhaps, as one who has been in the wholesale and retail trade for
many years, I may speak from a few facts j and not mere assumptions. From a choice of evils, if we are to have this Bill, I think the Amendment is the most equitable and most fair, and, speaking as president of a chamber of commerce in West London, and having an intimate knowledge of a large body of some of the largest traders in London, I say they would much prefer to have the Amendment and be allowed to earn the average rate of profit which they earned before the War. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill ventured the remark that it would inflict a great injustice on the trader, and for that reason opposed it. Much of the charge of profiteering is purely a misconception in this sense. While the trader is making larger profits to-day, and the returns of most of the large retail and wholesale business houses show an enormous increase in turnover, and, of course, in net profit, that is not due to a higher rate of profit but to the larger turnover In the sense I interpret it, that is not profiteering. It is due to the fact that, owing to the increased prices of commodities, the turnover has become higher. The most respectable traders invariably work upon a percentage of profit—what they conceive to be an honest trading profit. The honest trader is as anxious to satisfy his clients as he possibly can be. He has a goodwill which he is determined to preserve to the utmost. I know of many traders who, if their assistants overcharge a customer by some small trick, compel the salesman to return the money to the customer. I am speaking of high-minded men with large businesses, who have built them up because they have worked on sound lines.
I suggest to the Committee, if they are wise—and I am sure they want to do justice—they will accept the Amendment, because whatever may be the shortcomings of the tribunals—and I myself was for the whole period on one, and also on the borough food control committee—I know their shortcomings, weaknesses, and qualities—and I say advisedly—that with those committees as constituted it is practically impossible to do even-handed justice. What would be a reasonable profit in one case would be an unreasonable one in another. It would be, all very well if the goods were standardised. We should then know where we were with certain classes of goods. Prices vary, and if you settle the price of one, the others would be out of propor-
tion. Therefore, if you give an average rate of profit and the trader has to produce his trading accounts for the year before the War, and you put it at 20 or 25 per cent. and whatever the turnover is he will be satisfied, and the public will receive fair justice. That is all they want. On the whole, I put it to the Committee that it is all very well for the Government and those on the Front Bench to argue as they do—in a academic and philosophical way. But the average trader knows more about the wholesale and retail trade than does the Front Bench. You can talk academically if you like, but I could take lion, and right hon. Gentlemen into my factories or shops or to different businesses and show them how it is possible to drive a coach and horses through this Bill.
All that a multiple shopkeeper with 10, 20, or 100 shops has to do to got out of this Bill is to open a wholesale department. The goods he buys pours through it, and he re-invoices them, and makes two profits. He will tell the tribunal these are warehouse charges or, it may be, office charges. The Wholesale Co-operative are doing the same thing to-day and every day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I invoice goods every week to the Wholesale and Retail Co-operative, and I know what I am talking about. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be delighted to know what the co-operative societies do? They have no extra discount. They never see the goods. These were put through their warehouses. They go North or South. All they do is that they pay weekly or monthly, and they get a discount. The co-operative societies put out huge figures of their turnover, and say to the British public, "Look at the small percentage we work upon!" I do not know whether those who represent the co-operative societies opposite—

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is raising a controversial matter; perhaps it would be as well to keep to the point.

Mr. PERRING: I wish to tell the Committee how easy it will be to get through this Bill. In the case of many large traders the goods do not go through the wholesale at all. Perhaps half of them do, but they have a percentage out of the whole, and they say, "Look what a small percentage we work upon!" Supposing a
trader in the North had to deal with a case from a trader in Newcastle, Manchester, or London, and they have a cooperative society before them. If they take the basis of the wholesale profit as a sound guide for other people, the effect will be that the ordinary wholesaler, who has to keep travellers, carries enormous stocks and delivers the goods a second time. In the case of other traders, they invoice the goods through a wholesale department, and it is purely bookkeeping, and they are getting two profits. If the two profits be 7½ per cent. and 17½per cent., it would be 25 per cent. altogether. If the ordinary trader charged 25 per cent. it must be said that the retail shopkeeper had gone beyond the margin of a reasonable profit, while the co-operative society at 17½ per cent. would have been held to have done fairly. There is a distinction here without a difference. All multiple shopkeepers will, in all probability, open wholesale departments, and by deducting 7½ per cent. off the retail profit they will get 7½ per cent. from the wholesale and it will be difficult for any tribunal to prove that they have not handled the goods, and the result would be that inequalities would creep in. If the Amendment is accepted the average rate of profit in all grades will be equitable and in the result justice will be done.

Sir A. GEDDES: We have had a great deal of interesting information from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but we are dealing here with a much narrower point. I would suggest that it might be possible for the Government to meet this Amendment by inserting in the Clause we propose the words,
Provided that a profit which does not exceed the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as a seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions shall not be deemed unreasonable.
That is not quite the same thing.

Mr. INSKIP: So far as I am concerned I accept those words, and I think it is a better proposal than my own.

The CHAIRMAN: Those words are practically the same as are contained in a manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Hendon (Major Greame).

Major GREAME: My Amendment is not quite the same, because this proposal is directed to the average rate of profit earned by the seller during the three years
before the War. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not wish to move my Amendment. I am exceedingly glad that this concession has been given, because, had it not been so, it would have been found perfectly impossible to get people to sit upon these tribunals.

Mr. HOLMES: It would be only fair to allow the seller to take his own pre-war rate of profit. It may be that he had a higher pre-war rate of profit than the average profit, and, if so surely it is not unreasonable that ho should be allowed to take the pre-war rate of profit. The President of the "Board of Trade referred to a restricted turnover. If a man could take his own pre-war rate of profit, he would get something to meet it.

Sir A. GEDDES: I really think the point is met, and I hope that the Committee will let us have the Amendment now.

Mr. HINDS: There are a large quantity of goods which are sold at a certain price all round. Some of those goods are sold under cost, and others at a large profit in order to recoup the loss and make a profit on the whole.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the words,
Provided that a rate of profit which does not exceed the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as the seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions shall not be deemed unreasonable.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There is some question about a manuscript Amendment, and, if these words be added, it will shut out the Amendment, will it not?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I have already put the Question.

Mr. SWAN: Are we to understand, where the pre-war profits amounted to 50 per cent., and were converted every two or three years into bonuses, that they would be considered reasonable?

Sir G. HEWART: I am not certain I quite follow my hon. Friend's suggestion as to cases where the profit has been 50 per cent.

Mr. SWAN: On what is it to be based when the profits have varied from year to year and bonus shares have been given?

Sir G. HEWART: It would not depend on the amount of a particular firm's transactions; it would have to be the usual rate of profit in the trade or industry.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Take the case of a large firm of margarine manufacturers, which makes large profits, pays a dividend of 100 per cent., and also bonus shares. On what will the calculation be based in that case? Say the profits for three successive years are respectively75, 100 and 125 per cent. That gives a three years' average of 100 per cent. What in that case will be deemed a reasonable rate of profit? Would it be 100 per cent?

Sir G. HEWART: Not at all. The hon. Member entirely overlooks the words in the proviso 'in excess of the fair average rate made by persons in the same way of business." The experience of one particular firm is not enough.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then it is to be the average of the particular trade or industry?

Mr. HOLMES: The hon. Member is labouring under the impression we are to calculate the profit made on the capital of the company.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Suppose one firm of margarine makers has been making large profits although selling at the same rate as another firm which makes little or no profit, the difference being due to their superior organisation. Is the better organised firm only to have its profits on the same basis as the badly organised firm?

Sir G. HEWART: Now my lion. Friend is putting the matter the other way. But there is a saving proviso which does not deprive the well-organised firm of the profits due to its better organisation.

Mr. WATERSON: Docs not the right lion. Gentleman think it would be wise now for the Government to drop this Bill entirely?

Sir G. HEWART: No, I do not.

The CHAIRMAN: The Question is "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment,"

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I put in just now a manuscript Amendment on the question of the penalties. I want to know where I stand in regard to that: is it not ruled out by thus putting the Question?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I have already put the Amendment "That those words be there added." We cannot go back on that.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Mr. STEVENS: I beg to move, at end of paragraph(b), to add the words
(iv) in case any complaint shall on investigation be proved, to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, to be vexatious, the Board of Trade shall have power to award the seller such compensation, to be payable out of the fund or rate mentioned in Section six of this Act, as the Board of Trade shall deem reasonable.
I agree that the greatest profiteers are the people who deal in produce of different kinds in large quantities. Although that is generally admitted in Committee, the case we have come down to on every Amendment proposed is that of the shopkeeper. This Amendment meets the question of the large man of business and also covers that of the shopkeeper. It is an Amendment saving the seller from the result of vexatious proceedings. It is left entirely in the hands of the Hoard of Trade to pay such compensation, but lion. Members should bear in mind that it is the Board of Trade who will be responsible for bringing forward a complaint. The complaint may be made not vexatiously at all. It may be made with good facts behind it, yet the prosecution may be a vexatious one. I hoped that the Amendment, which is most reasonable in the interests of the honest seller, would have been accepted by the Government, but I understand it will not be, not because some such provision is unnecessary, but because it is thought that an Amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade at the bottom of page 2311 of the Amendment Paper somewhat covers the point. That is not the case. This Amendment is a saving to the honest seller, while the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is to give summary conviction to the dishonest informer—two very different matters.

The CHAIRMAN: I may remind the hon. Member that at an earlier stage in the proceedings we were promised an Amendment by the Government on these lines, so there is no need for him to labour the point.

Sir G. HEWART: An undertaking was given at an earlier stage that the Regulations should contain a provision about
costs That will be done in the Regulations. The matter does not only depend upon the penal Clause about to be removed, but we shall provide for the matter of costs in the case of a complaint which failed. The words the Amendment employs are "shall on investigation prove to be vexatious." A complaint which is found to be true could hardly be said to be vexatious. If it is unsuccessful he may be penalised in costs under the Regulations.

Mr. STEVENS: My point is not that the complaint may not be vexatious because it is a good complaint. It may be a good complaint and yet a vexatious prosecution. The point I want to make, dealing with larger traders, is this. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Wild) suggested that the shopkeeper should go out of business for six months. Shopkeepers unfortunately are not in that position, but the big merchants are. You have accepted 1 definition of profiteering by the last Amendment. Go on this a little further distance and assure the big merchant that he is not going to have a vexatious prosecution brought against him during the next six months, and he will go on with his business. On the other hand, if he fails to go on it is a very small matter for him to wait for six months, tout it is a very big matter for this country if the big merchants and exporters, more particularly the exporters, as well as the importers, can say, "We are not going to be troubled with this vexatious legislation and we will go out of business for six months." That is the point I want to cover. I am most anxious that the big merchants shall be able to go on without any feeling of vexation.

Sir J. BUTCHER: It would help the Committee if the Attorney-General would tell us in some short outline what kind of provisions he is going to make for costs by the Regulations, because it would seem only right that if the action of a shopkeeper is improperly challenged and the complaint absolutely fails, the shopkeeper should have some proper provision for his costs being paid.

Sir G. HEWART: In Clause 1, Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), which provides that the Board of Trade may require the complainant to purchase the article at such price, we undertook to insert in the Regulations a provision that in a proper case
the complainant should pay the costs of a person against whom the complaint was made. I should have thought that was far more likely to deter a complaint than the provision contemplated by this Amendment that the costs in such cases should be paid out of some fund.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What about the costs of an unsuccessful prosecution? Will they be reimbursed?

Sir G. HEWART: I suppose in that as in other cases costs will follow the event.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Supposing the prosecution is undertaken by the Board of Trade?

Sir G. HEWART: It must be.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would the Board of Trade be obliged to pay the costs, because we know there is a little difficulty about getting the Government to pay costs. I think their practice has become more humane, at any rate more reasonable, in, modern times. I should be glad of the assurance of the Attorney-General that if there is an unsuccessful prosecution the Board of Trade will compensate shopkeepers.

Mr. STEVENS: In these cases, except in the case of big traders and trusts, the complainant is almost certain to be a man of straw from whom no costs can be obtained. In these circumstances will the Government be responsible for costs?

Mr. NEAL: Is there not great danger of confusion here? Clause 1 deals with the Board of Trade receiving and investigating complaints. The Amendment speaks of "complaint." Is not the complaint, which would be interpreted as being the one covered by the Amendment, the complaint of the Board of Trade? There are two possible complainants and two possible complaints, and it needs to be made quite clear that they are on the same point. This is not a question of costs. The hon. Member has moved an Amendment which I do not understand. He suggests that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that any complaint is vexatious, the Board of Trade is to have power to award compensation—on what principle 2 do not know—to the person" who had been summoned to the Board of Trade or its delegated tribunal to answer that complaint—that is a step anterior to proaecu-
tion If it is a question of prosecution the ordinary law of the land would protect the person against an improper complaint by giving costs

Sir G. HEWART: It is necessary to distinguish two things. One is the case of a complaint under Clause 1, paragraph (b), and the other is the case of a. prosecution under what will now be Clause 1, Sub-clause (2). As regards the complaint which is really the only subject-matter of the Amendment now before the Committee, costs would be provided for in the Regulations. It is said, and it may be true, that in certain cases which have been specified the complainant would not be able to pay the costs. It would be right, and we should provide that in such a case the Board of Trade should pay the costs. I do not imagine that any other compensation beyond the costs is contemplated by this Amendment. In regard to the second matter which arises out of the Amendment, namely, the costs of a prosecution which fails, my hon. and learned. Friend (Sir J. Butcher) will remember a very long and very dull argument in the King's Bench Division shortly before the vacation upon the difficult question of costs against the Crown. I hope that before long that will be put upon a proper footing. My own view is that the Crown ought to be in the same position as any other litigant: it ought to pay where it fails, and to receive the costs where it succeeds. Let it not be imagined that it will be in any way disadvantageous to the Crown, because the Crown is so well advised—[Laughter]—yes—that the Crown usually succeeds. I hope it will be recognised that so far as this Bill is concerned, the question of costs can be provided for in the Regulations.

Lord R. CECIL: How are you going to get costs in respect of a complaint under paragraph (b)? There will be some difficulty about the procedure, for there you will not have ordinary legal procedure.

Sir G. HEWART: There will be no difficulty if the Regulation provides that the costs in cases that are unsuccessful shall be paid by the Board of Trade.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would it be possible to put into those Regulations some provision that a complainant must put up some sum for costs, so that if he is unsuccessful there will be some fund other than public funds to pay the cost, because
personally I would be very sorry to think that a malicious complainant could put a shopkeeper to this expense, and then have his costs paid for out of public taxation? Perhaps my right hon. Friend would consider that point in framing Regulations as to costs, so as to protect not merely the shopkeeper, but the public.

Sir G. HEWARTassented.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "fails to comply with," and to insert instead thereof the word "infringes."

Sir A. GEDDES: I will accept this if it is limited to the insertion of the words "or infringes."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "with" ["comply with,"], to insert the words "or infringes."

Lord R. CECIL: Under (b) (ii.) the Board of Trade may by order require the seller to repay to the complainant the excess price. Suppose that the order is made unfairly he will not be able to challenge it before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if he docs not pay he will be subject to fine or imprisonment or both, with, out his ever being able to bring before the Court the justice or the injustice of the original order. I cannot think that that is fair.

Sir A. GEDDES: At the end of Clause 2 there is a proviso for appeal from the orders of local committees.

Lord R. CECIL: That does not meet the point. In this case there is an order by the Board of Trade. It may be that that order is unreasonable. It is an administrative order made by an administrative body, yet once it is made the unhappy seller must go to prison or pay a fine without any power of bringing before the Court that is to enforce that fine or imprisonment the justice of the original order. The point is that it is not fair to expose anybody to fine or imprisonment without giving him an opportunity of questioning before the Court which is to impose the fine or imprisonment the justice of the original order, under which he is being prosecuted. The point is that once the order is made if it is not complied with the offence is complete, however unjust or improper it
has been. There ought to be some provision inserted giving him the power to bring before the Court of summary jurisdiction the question whether the order ought ever to have been made at all or not.

Sir A. GEDDES: I think there is a point of substance raised. I would suggest that we might meet it by some such words as these, in Sub-section (3)
If any person fails to comply with, or infringes an order of the Board of Trade under this Sub-section he shall, on proof of failure to comply or of infringement, be liable on summary conviction to a fine.
That does not quite meet the point, but it goes some way towards it.

Lord R. CECIL: It still leaves the point that he cannot challenge the justice of the original order. I really do not think it is fair at this time of day to enforce what really is a debt by fine or imprisonment. There may be every kind of gradation with the wickedness of the offence of overcharging. An order is made to repay, and thereupon that is to be enforced by fine or imprisonment. It is altogether a retrograde measure according to the course of legislation during the past fifty years.

Sir G. HEWART: I think it ought to be made very clear what is the point of substance which the. Noble Lord has raised. As matters stand, the investigation which is provided for by Clause 1 may be made either by the Board of Trade itself, or, if it delegates its power, by a committee. In the case of a committee the magistrate makes an order and there is an appeal against the order. But it is said that where the order is made by the Board of Trade itself, then, if the order is not complied with, or it is infringed, the mere fact that the order has been infringed and not complied with is to render the person liable to fine or imprisonment. Is not that quite reasonable? The order in that case will have to be made by the Board of Trade itself—that is to say, the Board of Trade will have conducted an investigation and will have found, as a fact, that the profit, in view of all the circumstances, was unreasonable, and, having found that, will have ordered the seller to repay the complainant the sum in excess. The question of fact will have teen decided. The fact that the order had been made would also have been determined. The order would speak for itself. I submit that we have made sufficient provision by way of appeal.

Mr. INSKIP: I cannot help feeling a little surprised that this Sub-section (3) is intended to apply to orders that come under Section 1 (b). I have a fairly distinct recollection that in his speech on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted by some hon. Members, I think by the Noble Lord himself, as to these orders under Sub-section (3), and the right hoi). Gentleman assured the House that it referred only to orders which were made under Sub-section (a). which required persons to appear before them and furnish information or produce documents. The infringement of that would be a proper thing to punish by a fine not exceeding £ 50 or by imprisonment—that is to say, if a man proved contumacious or refused to produce documents. It is different to apply that punishment to a mere refusal to pay money, or to do other things under paragraph (b). in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on Second Reading, T hope words will be inserted to make it clear that Sub-section (3) only applies to orders under Subsection (1) (a).

Sir A. GEDDES: I admit my remarks were open to that interpretation. The point, so far as my memory carries me, was in connection with penalties as to the first nine or ten lines on page 2 of the Bill, Sub-section (2). I quite agree that unintentionally I misled the House. That was the only point that was raised at the moment, and T apologise if I appeared to exclude what is, I think, a quite obvious fact, that this Sub-section also refers to orders which may be made under paragraph (b).

Mr. INSKIP: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will change that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out tin; word "fifty," and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred."

Sir G. HEWART: This is a penalty for failure to appear or furnish information, or for failing to repay where repayment is required. In such cases the penalty is £ 00 or imprisonment, or both, and I should have thought that was quite adequate.

Amendment negatived.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words "or to both such imprisonment and fine."

Lord R. CECIL: I trust that the right lion. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. This is really fantastic. Why should you subject a man for refusing to give information to both imprisonment and fine? There is no sense in making these things really ridiculous. This is not a question of punishing profiteering, but some contumacy in giving information. Surely you can trust the tribunals to impose either a fine or imprisonment!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would respectfully point out to the Noble Lord that it may be necessary to bring great pressure to bear on the members or possibly the servants of the big trade combines and trusts, who, I am afraid, are the only people—and I hope they will be—whom we shall be able to get hold of by this Bill. I understand these penalties are for people who do not come forward before the investigation committees and give information when required to do so, and it is most necessary for us to be able to deal drastically with such cases. There might be a great conspiracy among the great trusts and trade combinations to hamper the work of investigation, on which lines alone we can deal with this problem, and therefore it is necessary to have drastic punishment, and I do not think any money fine alone would be sufficient at all. I hope the Government will press their Amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I hope the Government are not going to press this Amendment, because it amounts to this, that if a complaint is made against a tailor that he has overcharged for a suit of clothes and an investigation is conducted by the Board of Trade, they can require the tailor to repay to the complainant the amount which is in excess of the price that ought to have been charged, and if he fails to comply with that order, ho is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, or to both. I suggest that that is an attempt to penalise traders beyond anything which ought to be considered by the Government.

Sir G. HEWART: I am sure the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin perceives that what is provided for here is not the penalty which shall be imposed, but the maximum penalty which in a proper case may be imposed. These are the extreme limits of the punishment which, in the
worst case, can be awarded. Let me see what the worst case might be. There might be a failure to appear, or there might be a refusal to furnish information, or to produce documents, but there might also be this, that in a particular transaction a very large illegitimate profit had been made, and it is conceivable that payment of a fine of £50 or imprisonment for a term of one month might not be enough. Why should not the Court or the stipendiary, in a proper case, be empowered to say, "In this case we will send this man, to prison and impose a fine as well"?

Lord R. CECIL: It is difficult to say or see how you are going to arrive at any limit under the scheme proposed. You would appear ultimately to arrive at the position of Draco, when all crimes were made punishable by death. I can only reply to the question of the Attorney-General by saying that I do not think that this is the kind of offence that under our general code of law should be punishable by the sort of penalty he proposes. It is quite easy to bend to popular prejudice in a matter of this sort, and to proceed vigorously against profiteers, to obtain a certain amount of popular applause by taking anyone to Court under Statute, and to propose and inflict severe penalties; but it is scarcely in accordance with the principles of good legislation or of our code of law. The Attorney-General, I imagine, would find it very difficult to produce any precedent thereto for making an offence of this kind punishable both by imprisonment and fine. I doubt whether he will find a single precedent.

Sir G. HEWART: I do not know about precedents—

An HON. MEMBER: The Police Bill!

Sir G. HEWART: But I am sure the Noble Lord sees that the main object of this Bill is not to punish, but to deter. We know what the poet says—
What's done you partly may compute,
But can't tell what's resisted!
The penalties in the Bill are primarily to deter persons from doing what is illegal.

Lord R. CECIL: Why, then, do not you make every offence capital?

Mr. NEAL: The Noble Lord does not realise that imprisonment might be absolutely necessary. But the Noble Lord cannot call attention to any part of the Bill
where the amount referred to is recoverable as a civil debt, and punishable! What the Bill does say is that the Board of Trade may order the repayment of the excess. It might very well be that no fine would be added to punishment, but it must be remembered that the amount of the repayment might not be very much, and the person might say that he would very cheerfully pay £50 and retire on the profit of the transaction.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The point made by the hon. Member (Mr. Neal) is a good one. At present the Board of Trade may order a profiteer to repay some grossly exorbitant sum that he had overcharged. He may refuse. You cannot proceed by the ordinary methods of execution as you could if it were an ordinary defendant, because it is tinder the ægis of the Board of Trade. I would suggest to my fight hon. Friend that he might between now and the Report Stage make some special provision for enforcing this by the Board of Trade in the same way as by an order of the Court—in other words by seizing the man's property. The best way is to get the money; that is better than imprisoning him. Some people prefer imprisonment to refunding money. I am afraid I cannot agree that these penalties are too severe. Personally, I do not think they are severe enough. Suppose a man, knowing that he has committed the worst offence of profiteering, deliberately refuses to appear before the Board of Trade, or to produce his books, or to give the necessary information to bring him to justice. A £50 fine is perfectly ridiculous. My hon. Friend spoke of analogies. Take the analogy of a Court of law. A Court makes an order upon a man to appear and to produce his books, and the man does not do it. He goes to prison for contempt of Court. It is worth considering whether a man who refuses to obey an order of the Board of Trade should not go to prison and remain there until he complies with the legitimate order of the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The point of substance made here is that a man might make a considerable profit and prefer any fine rather than disgorge. If that be so, surely it can be got over by the insertion of some such words as "in addition to proceedings for debt"! Perhaps the Attorney-General would tell us whether this debt, arising out of the order of the Board of Trade, is or is not recover-
able, and if there is no existing legal powers he would promote some form of words before the Report stage to deal with the omission?

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: My hon. Friend asks for a precedent. I can furnish one—that of the Income Tax Commissioners. The result of changes in the law has been, according to the statements of the Income Tax Commissioners, extremely beneficial, because many people would willingly attempt to cheat the Revenue by false returns or wrong information if the only risk they ran was that of having to pay the money. But they hesitate to do so when they have before their eyes the possibility of imprisonment. That is a very apposite precedent for legislation of this kind. As the Attorney-General pointed out, the object of this legislation is to deter rather than inflict punishment. A provision of this kind will have a deterrent effect, not so much upon small traders, who are not aimed at, so much as the great trader and the representative trusts.

Sir G. HEWART: In answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), the Board of Trade may sue for the full amount of the excess profit as a civil debt. The Statute also provides that where there is failure to comply with the order of the Board of Trade, the person who so fails to comply shall be liable on summary conviction to certain penalties. I rather think that it would be held by any Court that the remedy provided by the Act is the only remedy, and that in such cases there would not be found, unless expressly provided, to recognise the amount as a civil debt. The suggestion is a good one. I will consider between now and Report whether we cannot insert in the appropriate place in the Bill a provision to the effect that if the seller fails to repay the amount which he is required to repay, he may be sued for it by civil process.

Amendment negatived.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert
(4) If any person at or for the purpose of any such investigation or in any such complaint furnishes any information or makes any representation which is false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Earl WINTERTON: While there may be something to be said for the Amendment which has just been agreed to, it does not seem to me necessary, in the ease of such an offence as is aimed at by this Amendment, to impose both a fine and imprisonment. I should like to ask the Attorney-General what is the exact meaning of "false in any material particular. It seems to me that that is a very ambiguous phrase. Either a statement is false or it is true. What is meant by "false in any material particular"? I suggest that it is unnecessary to impose both a fine and imprisonment in such circumstances. I do not remember any case within the last fifteen years in which punishment by both fine and imprisonment has been put in any Bill. It would be used as a precedent for inserting it in all sorts of future legislation, and I beg the Committee to consider whether it is really necessary.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is not entirely clear whether such a false statement as is contemplated is a statement that is false in the sense that it is untrue in point of fact, or in the sense that the party making the complaint knows it to be false. If the former sense is to be taken, then a person might be convicted if he lodged a complaint which he believed to be true but which turned out afterwards to be wrong, although he did not know it at the time; and that would have such an effect on the minds of persons who might consider that they had a grievance that they would be afraid to report it. It would knock the bottom out of the chance of any complaint at all being made. I think some such word as "knowingly" ought to be inserted, in order to show that the punishment would be in respect of a maliciously made complaint.

Sir G. HEWART: Two points have been raised here. My Noble Friend objected to the words "in any material particular." Those, however, are words which are used in several Acts of Parliament.

Earl WINTERTON: I asked what they meant. I do not object to them.

Sir G. HEWART: They are inserted for the benefit of the defendant. A statement might be false in some trivial way—say an error as to date—which was not material. Falseness which is to be the subject of a conviction is falseness in any material particular. With regard to the
other words, I cannot imagine that any Court would convict a man under this Section for making a statement proved afterwards to be false when he was not aware of it; but I agree that some words ought to be inserted to make that clear. Accordingly, I should be willing to insert, before the word "false," the words "to his knowledgs."

Mr. JAMESON: I think that some such word as "recklessly" should be further added. One is familiar with the case of a man lodging an information at random, which, although it is not false within his knowledge, yet is actually false, and for its falsity he is responsible, because he has not made due investigation. I think this is a very valuable part of the Clause, because it is a deterrent upon people lodging frivolous and malicious complaints, which arc either false to their knowledge, or, which is just as bad in law, recklessly false, in that proper care has not been taken to investigate them. Accordingly I would suggest some such wording as "maliciously false"; or perhaps the Attorney-General can suggest a better wording.

Sir G. HEWART: I feel sure that it would be held that "false" would include recklessness, but I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and will accordingly amend the wording so that it reads "which is reckless or to his knowledge false."

Mr. INSKIP: Surely it is not intended to prosecute merely if an information is reckless, even though it may be true! The wording should surely be "recklessly or to his knowledge false."

Sir G. HEWART: Yes. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "is" ["makes any representation which is false"], to insert the words "recklessly or to his knowledge."

The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: On a point or Order. As you put the question, Mr. Whitley, the adverb "recklessly" is applied to the adjective "false," but I thought the intention of the Government was to use the adjective "reckless."

Earl WINTERTON: Before we come to a decision, would the Government explain what they mean?

Sir G. HEWART: Nobody would say that a man should be convicted merely because lie made a statement which was reckless. It must be a, statement which is false to his knowledge, or a statement which is false and which he makes recklessly, not caring whether it be true or false. I think the adverb and not the adjective is right.

Words, as amended, there inserted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "company" ["Where a person convicted under this Section is a company" to insert the words "or trade combination."
It is a peculiar thing that this wonderful Bill does, not once mention the words "trade combination," "trust," or "monopoly." In, later speeches answering criticisms, the Government have said, of course, that it is meant to hit the big trusts, but a little fine of £200 and the wording of the Bill show that they have no intention whatever of doing so. My last word is to read a line and a half from the forgotten Report of the Committee on Trusts, which was part of the working of the Ministry of Reconstruction, so many of whose good works have been put on the shelf in the interest of vested interests. This is the Report of that Committee:
Conclusions and recommendations. We are unanimously of opinion that it would be desirable to institute in the United Kingdom machinery for the investigation of the operations of monopolies, trusts and combines.
I respectfully submit to the Committee that paragraph (a) of Clause 1 does provide that machinery, though I am not sanguine that it is going to be used properly as things are at present in the country.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would it not be possible for the Government to give us some indication of how far they want to pet to-night on this Bill'?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I associate myself with that question? Many of us are keenly interested in the Ways and Communications Bill, to which there are some very important Amendments from the Lords. I understand it is the desire, and in fact that it is necessary, that we should deal with the matter to-night in order that the Amendments may be reconsidered, if necessary, by the Lords to-morrow. I understood it was hoped that the Profiteering Bill would
have finished early to-night, but it is quite obvious that it cannot be finished to-night. It would be for the convenience of those interested in the Ways and Communications Bill if the Leader of the House would give some indication of how far he wants to go with the Profiteering Bill.

Mr. BONAR LAW: In the form in which the question is put it is easily answered—it is how far we wish to go. We wish to end the Committee stage of the Bill. I express the hope that it may be possible to do that with good will. After all, the House has passed this Bill by a very large majority, and we must assume that it desired it to go through. The Session is very far advanced, and unless we finish it to-night I do not know how long we may take on account of the Bill in another place. I would ask the Committee to proceed as quickly as they can, with due regard to the importance of the Bill. As regards the Ways and Communications Bill, it must be obvious to my hon. Friend that the quicker we get through this Bill the quicker we shall get to that Bill.

Lord R. CECIL: Does my right hon. Friend intend to take the Ways and Communications Bill at, any hour to-night'? Legislation, after all, is not a mere joke. We must, at any rate, pretend to do-things reasonably.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite admit that this is being rushed, but the whole justification for this Bill is the same justification that enabled us to carry through many important measures during the War without the proper lime that would be given in ordinary times. The conditions are so exceptional as to justify exceptional treatment. That is the justification for this Bill. I must ask the Committee to help us in this matter and try to get it through.

Mr. ACLAND: We should like to have one word from the Government about the Amendment.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I wish to ask the Government what meaning they attach to the words "trade combination"? We have in Scotland such a thing as a firm which has a separate persona from the individual partners in it. So far as I can see, this provision would not touch a firm at all. A firm carrying on business as John Smith and Co., which may not be composed of any gentleman of that name,
may be guilty of an offence in this connection, and there will be nobody you can get at under the Bill. This Sub-section speaks of "a company" and the Amendment refers to a "trade combination," but I doubt whether that covers a firm. A further definition should be put in, because the term "trade combination" is not sufficiently up-to-date.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "every director and officer of the company," and to insert instead thereof the words "the chairman and managing director."
The object of the Amendment is to limit the responsibility for an infringement of the Bill to those men who are really running the business of which complaint is made. It is absurd to say that every director of a limited liability company is to be held guilty of profiteering in the matter of retail prices unless he proves himself to be innocent. Everybody knows that the directors generally settle large questions of policy and, perhaps, the general percentage on turnover, but they are not generally seised of the details of particular articles and the prices and percentages thereof. If this Clause goes through as proposed by the Government, the life of a director of a limited liability company will be a very thorny one indeed. The term "officer of the company" is very ambiguous. I take it that an officer is anyone capable of giving orders. Any clerk is an officer of a company. Is every clerk in a large business to be held responsible unless he proves himself to be innocent? That is absolutely impossible. In the interests of making the Bill workable, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment to limit the responsibility to the chairman and managing director.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I support the Amendment and concur in what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. The Clause as it stands is quite unworkable. It would probably include the auditor of a company, who might be Sir William Peat, who is often employed by the Government. It will not work at all. The chairman and the managing director are the people who take most of the fees, and probably they would be the right people to be dealt with. There arc very large boards of directors in some com-
panies, and if they are all to be included the Government will have to consider very seriously what amount of accommodation there is in His Majesty's gaols !

Mr. T. WILSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman is assuming that a very large proportion of these companies will be prosecuted. This Bill, bad as it is, is intended to put a stop, as far as possible, to profiteering, but the honest trader will not be benefited by it at all.

Mr. ACLAND: This is the second Amendment upon which the Government, apparently, is going to give no reply.

Earl WINTERTON: I think this Amendment is of some substance, and I think it is not for the good of any Bill that the Government should not reply to an Amendment. It would seem that that is their intention.

Sir G. HEWART: I am 'sorry I did not reply before, but I really did not think any reply was needed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will give the reason. The words "every director and officer of the company" are taken from the Companies' Act. Officers of a company do not include every clerk, as has been suggested. Subject to the articles of association, the officers of a company are such persons as are nominated by the Companies Act, and what is said is that, where you are dealing with that artificial person called a "company," every director and officer of the company—that is to say, the persons with whom the governing responsibility rests—shall be guilty of the offence, unless—Unless what unless he as an individual can prove that the act which constitutes the offence took place without his knowledge or consent. Where is the hardship? It is said that the gaols will be full of these persons. Is it contemplated that so many companies will have committed offence and that so many directors and officers will be unable to prove that they did not know of them?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is very hard to put it upon these company directors—bad as we may know them to be—to have to prove their innocence.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: It seems to be a contravention of the ordinary procedure in this country that a man
should have to prove himself innocent. I always supposed that in this country a man was regarded as innocent until he was proved to be guilty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "company" ["every director and officer of the company"], to insert the words "or, in the case of a trade combination, every member of such combination"

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 24.

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[12.34 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Forestier-Walker, L.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Foxcroft, Captain C. J
Pratt, John William


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Atkey, A. R.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Purchase, H. G.


Baird, John Lawrence
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Raeburn, Sir William


Baldwin, Stanley
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John.;
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Glyn, Major R. J
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barnston, Major Harry
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Grundy, T. W. I
Roundel), Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hailwood, A.
Royce, William Stapleton


Blades, Sir George R.
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Seddon, J. A.


Briant, F
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon 
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Sexton, James


Briggs, Harold
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Britton, G. B.
Holmes, J. S. 
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Bread, Thomas Tucker
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, W.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Simm, Col. M. T.


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Jodrell, N. P.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Johnson, L. S.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Johnstone, J.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Campion, Col. W. R.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) J
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Cape, Tom
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Carr, W. T.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander, J. M.
Sugden, W. H.


Casey, T. W.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Sutherland, Sir William


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Kidd, James
Talbot, G. A. (Kernel Hempstead)


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
King, Commander Douglas
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Clough, R.
Knights, Captain H
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E-)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Townley, Maximilan G.


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Tryon. Major George Clement


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Vickers, D.


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Lunn-William.
Waddington, R.


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Wallace, J.


Davidson, Major-General sir John H.
Lunn, William
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Mitchell, W. Lane
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Williams. Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)


Edge, Captain William
Nail, Major Joseph
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Neal, Arthur
Woolcock, w. J. U.


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Newbould, A. E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Entwistle Major C. F.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Norris, sir Henry G.
Younger, Sir George


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Parker, James



Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Talbot and Captain Guest.




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Winterton, Major Earl


Blair, Major Reginald
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Perring, William George



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Remer, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Greame, Major p. Lloyd-
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Kennedy Jones and Lieut.-Col. W. Guinness.


Hinds, John
Stevens, Marshall



Jameson, J. G.

I am not to going repeat the arguments I used before, but I would ask the Attorney-General or the President of the Board of Trade if they would honour me by giving some reply or arguments as to why this present Amendment of mine should not be accepted. If they
cannot, I will appeal to the Leader of the House and tell him that I intend to press this to a Division if I do not get an explanation. I think that even private Members should be given some explanation of the Government's attitude towards this Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: The answer to the hon. and gallant Member is quite simple. There are two kinds of persons known to the law. One is a human being, and the other is the artificial person called a company. The human being may be a member of a firm, a partner; or the association may be one constituted under the Companies' Acts, and then it is a company. This Bill provides for both and any person, whether he be an individual or whether he be a director or an officer of a company, is liable under this Bill. It is not necessary to go further.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I must say that I do not consider that the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is adequate. "Company," surely, does not include a trade combination. You may have a number of firms who have an agreement among themselves to keep up prices, and that is the very worst and most malicious form of what is known loosely as profiteering. Suppose that a firm is found on investigation to be one of a combine selling some article of use, and is proceeded against; the heads of all the other firms who have entered in the agreement to conspire against the State get off scot free.

Sir G. HEWART: Every one of them is liable, whether he be a person, a firm, or a company.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Or combination of companies?

Sir G. HEWART: Whether the combination of companies, persons, or firms.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With that very valuable explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord R. CECIL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do this in order to extract from the Government some indication of their intentions. With this extremely important Bill, which raises matters of the greatest possible importance, we have made what in normal circumstances would be regarded as pretty good progress. The greater
part of the most important Clause has been passed, and I should have thought that we had done enough. But that is not the only point. Many of us, including myself, are very much interested in the Lords Amendments to the Ministry of Transport Bill. I do not know to what hour we are to go on, but it is not reasonable to ask us to consider those Amendments at four or five in the morning. I respectfully urge the Government to treat this House reasonably. There has been a great deal of talk about the desire to restore the respect of the country for this House, and it is of vast importance to the country at the present moment, but the first thing that the Government have to learn, and must be taught by the House of Commons if necessary, is that they must treat this House with respect. This House is treated with contumely and insolence by the Government on every possible occasion. The Prime Minister does not think it worth while to attend here. We have the greatest difficulty in securing reasonable treatment from the Government on any subject, simply because they have an enormous majority in this House. That is not discharging their duty properly to the country, and I venture to hope that the Government will not ask the House to consider this very important measure till four or five in the morning, and then bring in another matter of very great importance. It is really not treating the House fairly and reasonably, and it is not calculated to raise the estimation in which the Government is held in the country, or, what is of even more importance, the reputation of the House of Commons.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have had much more experience in moving Resolutions such as this than in replying to them, and I am not sure that I can reply so adequately as I could move such a Resolution. Those who have been Members of previous Parliaments have gone through this sort of thing, I do not know how many times, and the same complaint is always made.

Lord R. CECIL: And the result is the position of the House of Commons now.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The complaint is always made that the House of Commons has been treated with contumely, and that we pay no respect to it.

Lord R. CECIL: Quite true.

Mr. BONAR LAW: All that my Noble Friend's interpretations mean is that he has not forgotten his old practices, and is quite
ready to begin them again under the new conditions Members of the Government do not like sitting up all night any more than anyone else. We are not doing it to please ourselves. As far as I am concerned, I would much prefer to keep the House sitting two or three days longer. It is a mistake to suppose that we are treating the House with disrespect, or that we are not trying to do what I believe the House desires. The real fact is that we have to choose between getting this Bill through rapidly now, or having a very considerable delay. It has got to go through another place, and it is my opinion that in the course we are taking we are really doing what the great majority of the House of Commons wish. I think they want to get on with the Bill, and, in spite of all that is said about not being able to legislate at this hour of the morning, so long as there is a fair attendance, as is the case now, there is no reason to suppose that Amendments will not be considered as adequately as if we were taking it at four in the afternoon. I venture to think that I am expressing the wish of the vast majority of the House of Commons. If I thought otherwise I would take the course suggested by the Noble Lord. The Government wish to do what the House of Commons wishes them to do. As to his remark about our relying on our big majority, everyone knows that the exact reverse is the case. If we had to run the Government with a majority of fifty there would be no question about everyone of our supporters backing us up. Under present conditions we have frequently found it essential that we should carry the good sense of the majority of the House of Commons with us, and I am convinced that that is so in the course we are now taking.

Mr. ACLAND: I am inclined to support the Noble Lord's Motion, but I would like to make a suggestion that might possibly be helpful. A good many hon. Members are more interested in the Lords Amendments to the Ministry of Transport Bill than in this Bill, and I suggest that we might now break off and consider the Lords Amendments, and, if it were found that those Amendments could be disposed of in a short time, we could resume with this Bill. That might be done by general consent.

Mr. BONAR LAW: As a matter of fact I myself thought that that would be the
more convenient course, because arrangements have been made to deal with the Transport Bill in another place to-morrow, and it is the duty of the House of Commons to consider the convenience of the House of Lords just as much as our own convenience. It has, however, been found that the course suggested is not practicable.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A communication has just been made to me by the Minister-designate to the effect that the Transport Bill is not likely to have an easy passage, and I think it will take a considerable time. There are a number of Amendments which I believe the Government have accepted, but there are several important ones which they have rejected. The right hon. Gentleman has just informed me, and I appreciate his kindness in doing so, that the Government have succumbed to an Amendment in the Lords in the interests of the railways, and that is a very serious matter, which I think will have to be debated at considerable length. It completely nullifies the Clause, and the Government frankly intends to adopt it as a Government Amendment, so they cannot expect an easy passage for the other Amendments, and the measure becomes a contentious one again. I suggest that the Government should either take the one Bill or the other, but not both. If the Profiteering Bill is to last till four or five o'clock it would not be fair to take these important. Amendments on the Transport Bill then.

Earl WINTERTON: The point at issue has not been fully dealt with by the Government. It is really ridiculous to say that suggested legislation, however urgent, can be properly discussed at such, an hour. That is an attitude which has been taken up again and again. It was taken up particularly by the Unionist party on the introduction of the Budget in 1909, and it shows unparalleled cynicism now to say that a Bill of this kind should be so taken. I will go further and say that what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, if it is fully reported in the papers, will add to the mistrust of the sincerity of politicians and of political life. With a levity which I personally found surprising, the right hon. Gentleman said he was much more at home in proposing Motions to report Progress than in opposing them, and found it easier to move than to oppose them. Except for the statement that it was necessary to pass the Bill to-night
that was the only statement that the right hon. Gentleman made. The Leader of the House has admitted that when he is in opposition he takes certain action, while when he represents the Government, under exactly similar circumstances, he opposes it. Such an attitude is one of the reasons why there is so little faith in this House. Moreover, legislation passed at this hour never really succeeds in the country. We have had a dozen instances of that during the last ten years. The 1909 Budget is an outstanding example. The Land Valuation Clauses of that Budget, for instance, which have been thrown over by the Government, were passed at two, three, four, or five in the morning, and even their authors could not understand them; and the state of chaos to which they led is one of the causes of the utter chaos now prevailing, and, indeed, of the necessity for this Bill.

Major E. WOOD: If it is not desirable to accede to the request to report Progress, and if we cannot by general consent follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), might I ask whether the Leader of the House could give us some direction, say, that the consideration of this Bill would be continued till two o'clock, so that we may know where we are.

1.0 A.M.

Mr. BONAR LAW: When I said that I believed that what we are doing is what would be desired by the majority of this House, I meant what I said. We are not doing this for the sake of the Government itself. Indeed, it is very much the reverse. We have got to realise what the facts are. We have to get these two measures through before we adjourn for the Recess. The time for them to be taken depends not only upon this House but upon another place. My fear is that many Members who are here to-night may not for one reason or another, be able to be here at a later date. My impression is that the course the Government is taking commends itself to the majority of the Members of the House. But I am agreeable, if there is to be a Division on the Motion, to report Progress, that it should be taken without the Government Whips being put on. If the result shows that the Committee is willing to go on I hope Members will fully realise that they must take a fair share in the work later on. On the other hand, if it shows that I am wrong we will take any measures which should follow the result of the Division. If the Committee decides
to report Progress on this Bill we will not be able to take the other Bill to-night. If the Committee takes the other view we will go right on, but if we find that without obstruction—and I think there has been very fair discussion so far—we are able to take the Transport Bill after an hour or two more on this Bill we may then take the opinion of the Committee again.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it really necessary to take the Transport Bill to-night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it only a question of the convenience of the other House? I should myself prefer if I were a Member of the other House, that my Amendments were considered at a time when they could be properly understood than that they should be hurried through, even if the result of that should be that some different arrangement had to be made for the convenience of another place. I do not know what the hon. Baronet who has just spoken may have been told in the conversation he referred to. I believe there is a certain amount of difference on the Amendments to the Transport Bill, but that there is no serious difficulty. I am cure hon. Members will realise that a quarrel with the other House just now would be a very disastrous thing.

Mr. BONAR LAW: What has been said on this Motion 'has been quite reasonable. I think I can say we have taken every means in our power to find out what was the wish of the other House in regard to these measures. I believe the other House has made arrangements to deal with the Transport Bill to-morrow, and if that is not dealt with here to-night it will cause great inconvenience to them. That is one reason why I press it. I think I have made members of the Committee a very fair offer—that they should take a Division, and we will act on their decision.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not think the Committee wants a Division now. The hon. Member who made the Motion did so to obtain some idea of what the Government intended to do, and how long they proposed we should sit. I suggest that after what has been said we should not divide now, but we, might take a Division in about an hour's time without putting the Government Whips on.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 141.

Division No. 100.]
AYES.
[1.5 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E)
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Holmes, J. S.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Johnstone, J.
Stevens, Marshall


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Briant, F.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Waddington, R.


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Kiley, James Daniel
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)



Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Newbould, A. L
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Remer, J. B.
Robert Cecil and Earl Winterton.


Foxcroft, Captain C.






NOES.


Agg-.Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke
Pratt, John William


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Atkey, A. R-.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Purchase, H. G.


Baird, John Lawrence
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John.
Raeburn, Sir William


Baldwin, Stanley
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Guest, Capt. Ron. F. E. (Dorset, E.)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hailwood, A.
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Royce, William Stapleton


Blades, Sir George R.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Blair, Major Reginald
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Seddon, J. A.


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Hirst, G. H.
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Sexton, James


Briggs, Harold
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brittain, Sir Harry E.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Inskip, T. W. H.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Bromfield, W.
Jodrell, N. P.
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Johnson, L. S.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Campion, Col. W. R.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Cape, Tom
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Carr, W. T.
Kidd, James
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Knights, Captain H.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Casey, T. W.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Sugden, W. H.


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Sutherland, Sir William


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Lindsay, William Arthur
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)


Clough, R.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Townley, Maximilan G.


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Lunn, William
Tryon, Major George Clement


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Wallace, J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Mitchell, William Lane-
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Weston, Col. John W.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Doyle, N. Grattan
Murray. William (Dumfries)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Nail, Major Joseph
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Edge, Captain William
Neal, Arthur
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Norris, Sir Henry G.
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Parker, James
Younger, Sir George


Fitzroy, Capt Hon. Edward A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Flannery. Sir J. Fortescue
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forestier-Walker, L.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Major Barnston and Major Wheler.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Perring, William George

Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "company" officer of the company "to insert the words "proved to have been cognisant of the price charged or sought to be charged."
The Amendment is simply designed to effect what I believe to be the desire of every Member of this House, which is to retain the British practice of allowing a man to be deemed innocent until he is proved to be guilty. This is a subject which demands no lengthy discussion. During the War we were accustomed under
the Defence of the Realm Regulations, for reasons of national safety, to have adopted this method of saying that a man must prove himself to be innocent. and we submitted to it, but I shall always set my face against it if ever I find an attempt made to carry this practice into what I may call our normal Acts of Parliament. I find here a proposal to put this system into practice, and I therefore move to insert words to make it incumbent on the prosecution to prove that those who are held to be guilty shall know the offence with which they are charged. I am not committed to
these particular words, and there are other Amendments on the subject on the Paper, but the whole subject can be discussed upon my Amendment. I beg to move.

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand that Clauses in this form are of common occurrence in the Companies' Acts, and that there is no departure from British practice involved in this Clause. It will be clear to the Committee that, in the first instance, the company has to be convicted, and that the ordinary rules which exist outside the Companies' Acts apply to that conviction; and it is only on what I may call a dissection of the composite personality that this Section comes in, and I understand that it is on that ground that this form is used in connection with these statutory persons and companies. This is in the ordinary form for such cases, and I see no reason for departing from the ordinary course of legislation.

Lord R. CECIL: Surely the case in which a company is guilty of crime is an extremely rare one. There are such cases, I dare say—offences against by-laws, Building Acts, and those kind of things—but here is an offence for which a man may be sent to prison for three months and fined £200. You are going first to prove a company guilty of an offence in contravening this Act—that, perhaps, will not be a difficulty—and then you have to bring it home to some individual. After all, a company is only guilty of a crime by a mere fiction. It is not, strictly speaking, guilty of a crime. Only an individual can be guilty of a crime, strictly speaking. When you come to putting somebody into prison you cannot put a company into prison. You have to put some individual into prison. What you are going to say is that if the individual is a member of a firm you will have to prove against that man that he is guilty of a crime, but if he is a director of a company you will not have to prove it against him, you will only have to prove that there has been profiteering on the part of the company, and then lie will have to prove that he knew nothing about it, which is a reversal of the rule, and I cannot conceive any reason why a director of a company should be treated differently from a partner in a firm. The case seems to be absolutely parallel. In the case of an ordinary trading firm you prove that they have charged too high a price, which shows profiteering, and that will be, as
far as the actual act of trading is concerned, complete. When you have to bring it home to any individual member you will have to prove that he was guilty of that offence. I cannot conceive why, because a man happens to be a director and not a partner, he should be treated differently. I hope the Government will consider this again, because it appears to me to be absolutely indefensible, and though I do not pretend to a great knowledge of company law—that is a subject of which I never knew very much, and I do not pretend to remember what I did know—I should be surprised to learn that there was any parallel ease, one in which you made directors guilty of a crime in a case of this kind unless they had an opportunity of hearing the whole of the evidence, and of testing it, which they could do if they were present when the charge was made. Just conceive how unfair it would be. A man is a director. Ho may take no part in the management of the company—it may be a co-operative society—but the charge of profiteering is made, the whole charge is heard in his absence. He has no opportunity of dealing with it at all. Then a conviction is obtained against the company—it may be quite properly—'but it may be that he has a complete defence so far as he is concerned, and when he is called up he has got to prove that he knew nothing about it. That is putting upon him a burden that you do not put upon the meanest criminal, and I hope the Government will consider this Amendment

Mr. KILEY: I desire to join in the appeal which the Noble Lord has made to the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the answer be has given. If he is not prepared to accept the Amendment, will he accept the words "managing director"? There are many Members of this House who are directors of companies, but take no part in the "detailed work of the company. They attend the board meeting and look at facts and figures, but to ask a director to take part in every transaction and every sale is an impossible proposition, and if the President of the Board of Trade intends to resist the Amendment be ought to qualify it by limiting it to the managing directors That would be some safeguard.

Major GREAME: I think the Committee passed a recent Amendment on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, and on the assurance of the Attorney-General
that there would be no hardship or unfairness to the directors or any officers of a company, but I do not think that the Committee would have given that vote if they had realised that the Government were the next moment going to create a new system of criminal procedure in a six months' Bill. I wish the Attorney-General was here, but I cannot remember a single Act of Parliament in which the onus is put upon a body of men of proving themselves innocent. and in default to be liable to imprisonment, unless it is the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and I am sure the House will not wish to prolong the worst features in the Defence of the Realm Act. It is a perfectly simple proposition. We do not want to create injustice or unfairness. We want to hold the balance fairly between the trading community on the one hand and the people with whom they trade on the other, and I cannot conceive anything more likely to rouse antipathy to the Government than a Bill which introduces this provision that people are to be assumed guilty until they prove that they are innocent. Just imagine what the procedure is going to be. You take some branch of some company which is alleged—rightly or wrongly—to be profiteering. The whole of the officers and directors of this company will be brought to the inquiry, and they must attend, for otherwise it will be said against them: "You let this go by default. "I am sure this was put in by the Government in an excess of zeal, but it was misplaced zeal, and they will be meeting the wishes of the House and country if they accept the Amendment.

Sir E. WILD: There was one case I had in criminal law—and I can only recall one case apart from the Defence of the Realm Act—in which the onus was thrown on the prisoner. That is an Act passed by this House, "The Prevention of Corruption Act," by which a public official when proved to have received a sum of money is proved to be corrupt unless he proves to the contrary.

Mr. NEAL: The Coal Mines Act, 1911—agents and managers.

Sir E. WILD: At all events it is a modern invention which is subversive of justice. I do hope that my right hon. Friend will be advised and meet the sense of the Committee in trying to preserve
some signs of British liberty. I have been in hundreds of cases under Defence of the Realm Act—and everything I have said to-night has been against my own interests, for it is a magnificent Bill for the lawyers—and it was uncommon to send a company to prison. You generally got the maximum costs. This Bill goes farther, and if you can prove that any director is "cognisant of the price charged or sought to be charged," then you are not only willing to fine him but to send him to prison as well. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this and give us a little vestige of ordinary British justice.

Major BARNES: I am quite sure it is not the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Clause to enable directors to escape from the charge of profiteering. I do submit that as it stands that would be its effect. We have been told directors deal with matters of policy and not with details of prices. Charges will always arise in connection with prices, and if these words are affixed it will be impossible to show that any director was personally cognisant of the particular price of the particular article in connection with which the charge is brought. Directors occupy a position of responsibility. In fact if they do not know about the business, in theory they ought. They represent all the advantages of the concern, and they should be liable for the finance. Directors would be placed in an entirely favourable position by the Amendment, and while the principals of single firms would be got at, directors would always escape, since they would always be able to show that they were ignorant of the price of the particular article.

Mr. INSKIP: My hon. Friend gets up and says he is sure I have no intention of enabling directors to escape, very much as he would say, ''As I have no intention of enabling a murderer to escape the gallows." It is suggested that every director must be primâ facie, guilty because it is intensely difficult to prove him guilty by the ordinary process of the law, therefore, it is said, let us assume he is guilty by a special process.

Sir A. G EDDES: I do feel that this point is not really being clarified. We have got here, in the first part of the Clause, "Where a person convicted under this Section is a company," not a section of a company, therefore it seems to me quite right and proper to say, primâ facie, the
individuals who are responsible for running that company are guilty. That seems to me to be a perfectly straightforward, honest thing. If we wanted to stop there, I could have understood the criticism of the Clause. Thus it would have been said, "You are not giving anybody any chance of escape," but here it says unless he can prove it took place without his knowledge and consent. A person at a meeting, if he had nothing to do with the prices fixed, will not come in. I really cannot see that there is any special possibility of injustice here. If there were any points which could be brought forward, which would not be allowing the big man to go scot-free—and the greatest part of the profiteers in the whole country are covered by this Clause—if we are not going to allow the big men to escape, I should be prepared to meet any suggestion with reason; but to say that no director is to be regarded as responsible for the doings of the company of which he forms a directing part unless, as is suggested, he is actually proved to have known about that particular act, is perfectly impossible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] How can any director of a big concern know about a sale made by some individual?

Lord R. CECIL: Why should he be treated differently from the firm?

Sir A. GEDDES: He is not. If hon. Members have, anything to suggest which will meet the difficulty which they see, and which I see partly, I shall be glad. But I see a much greater difficulty on the other side. If we were to accept these Amendments as they stand, I think we should be rightly said to be throwing a special protection around the very biggest of the fish that we hope will be caught in this net.

Mr. JAMESON: The only point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is that if the company is convicted it follows primâ facie, according to him, that every director is guilty. The whole point of this Amendment is that the very reverse is the case. It does not follow, because you convict a company, that any director is guilty. It cannot properly be so assumed, except in the case of the managing director. Directors only deal with general policy, not with particular retail prices or particular prices of particular articles. I think the argument remains perfectly valid that it is the duty of the Crown to
prosecute in a case like this; and then, having convicted the company, they must proceed to discharge the onus that clearly lies upon them of bringing to any director his particular guilt. It was admitted, on the former Amendment, that, although there might be a primtâ facie case against the managing director, there would be no primâ facie case against other directors, and therefore I think the case for this Amendment cannot be gainsaid. Otherwise a very great innovation is introduced into the criminal practice in this country. The cases that have been mentioned are the only ones I can remember in which the onus has been placed on the accused of proving his innocence. Whenever any proceedings of this kind are taken against a company, every director on the board would have to come forward, however innocent he might be, and to prove his innocence or go to gaol. That is absurd, and would lead to the most cumbrous and long-winded procedure, which would provide a perfect fortune for the lawyers.

Major E. WOOD: The point is really a simple one. Nobody wishes to enable the big men who are guilty to escape. By all means let them stand the racket for what they have done wrong, but do not condemn them unheard. The right hon. Gentleman urged that it was unreasonable to suggest that the ordinary director was to be expected to know all the details of a business for which he might be held responsible, and yet he does hold him responsible. If that position is taken up the only logical thing is to go a step further and include the shareholders, because they make the profits no less than the directors. That, I think, proves how absolutely indefensible is the doctrine of corporate liability quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. I earnestly appeal to him, even at this last moment, to give us some hope that the door may not be entirely closed, and that he will sec if something cannot be done between now and the Report stage in the direction of finding such a form of words as will avoid these objections and meet the point which he no less than ourselves has in view.

Mr. HOLMES: This Clause enacts that every director or officer of the convicted company shall be regarded as guilty. Now, at any rate from the Inland Revenue point of view, the auditor is an officer. Let us suppose that a large company, which has a branch in Manchester, is convicted in London. Is Sir William Plender to be
considered as guilty, and must he go and prove himself innocent? That, apparently, is what it means. Again, many companies have directors abroad, or local directors in various parts of the country, who would not be responsible for what was done elsewhere; yet they might have to submit to the indignity of being taken into a Court of justice to prove themselves innocent. At the present time many company directors are serving in the Army of Occupation, and they also might have to prove in a Court of justice that they are innocent. The right hon. Gentleman told the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin that he was treating firms and companies alike; but apparently, while a charge would not be preferred against a member of a firm who was serving, yet if a company was convicted one of its directors in the same circumstances might be treated differently.

Mr. NEAL: With a great deal that has been said as to the inequity of calling upon persons to prove their innocence I am in absolute agreement. That can only be justified, if at all, in extraordinary cases. The only analogous case to this is that of the Coal Mines Act, which makes the agent of the colliery—and hon. Members will recollect that the term "agent," as there used, is a technical term—and the manager of the colliery, liable for acts of default, even of workmen, in the pit, unless it can be proved that such acts were done in circumstances which leave the agent or manager free from responsibility. The principle is, as I take it, that, having accepted a position of direct responsibility for the safety of the mines, he is responsible for what happens to them unless he divests himself of that position. The terms of the Section in the Bill are too wide, and I think that between now and the Report stage—I fear it could not be done at this hour—the Attorney-General might find words which would meet the purpose. I cannot vote for the Amendment, because the effect of it might be that a company or the debenture holders might be ordered to pay a large sum of money which had been, as alleged, illicitly obtained from the public or by fraudulent competition with competitors in trade, without any public definition of the grounds on which such fines should be enforced. If the provision could be limited to the managing director, where there was one, or some person who was in a like position, it seems
to me it would be justifiable to make an. exception from the general principle applicable to such persons.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The hon. Member who gave reasons in favour of this Amendment gave some illustrations of the way in which? companies or directors could prove that they were not responsible because they lived in other towns or even abroad. They could not be guilty in such cases, and I say these are just the persons who could prove by the fact of their absence that they were not guilty. The accountant and the partner may be in another town, and, if so, surely they could have no guilty knowledge of what was going on. The complete absence of the evidence necessary to make any allegation against them would be obvious. It seems to me that this discussion, which is already too long, is based on two misunderstandings. The first is that the director is a person who may have little or no knowledge of the affairs of the company of which he is a director. I have had as much experience, perhaps, as a director as any man in this House, a very large experience at any rate, and I say that the individual who becomes a director of a company and does not acquaint himself with the operations of that business is guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. It is the-duty of any man who takes such a position in a company to know what are its general policy and its general operations, and to hold himself responsible to everyone concerned for the duty he has undertaken.
The second misconception of the supporters of the Amendment is that there is no conviction, no primâ-facie conviction. There is. A conviction must be established against a company before a director shall be made responsible. That is the onus lying on the prosecution. Once the company is proved to be guilty, there is a primâ-facie case that all persons responsible for the management and paid for the mangagement, and who have a duty to that company, must know what has been going on. There is, therefore, no substantial grievance to be put forward, and the case of the Mover and supporters of the Amendment is only theory and not put forth in a practical way. We want to stop profiteering. If you want to stop it, you must make those responsible liable for it when it is discovered. There is a case which is plausible, specious, and attractive to induce the Attorney-General to put some
such Amendment to the Clause in the Bill, but he should not go so far as to defeat the object of the Bill.

Sir G. HEWART: I think the observations which have been made prove the justice of the Clause. I have listened respectfully to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment and his supporter, who is also a lawyer of great experience and knowledge, and I will certainly endeavour between this morning and the Report stage to devise, if I can, some way of meeting their point.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Why not accept the Amendment?

Sir G. HEWART: It goes too far. I am sure the Committee desires to deal fairly with this matter. The law recognises two persons: one the human being, the individual; the other is the artificial person, a company which enjoys advantages and privileges. This part of the Bill only begins to operate where that artificial person is a director or agent of a company which has committed an offence. The object of the Bill here is to make profiteering an unpopular and uneasy practice and thus to discourage the profiteer. What is the positon where the person convicted is a company and is immediately face to face with the making of the profit? There are human beings behind this entity, and they are liable morally and legally. The Bill says that where persons are really charged with responsibility in the conduct of the affairs of the company they shall be legally liable. That includes the directors and officers of a company, and when a company has been convicted the Bill says that these directors and officers of a company, properly so called, are guilty of the same offence unless they prove that when the act which constituted the offence took place they had no knowledge of it or consent in it. I suggest to the Committee that it is clear that before this liability of the directors and officers comes in there must have been an offence by the company. Meanwhile, I will endeavour to meet the point which has been raised.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will there be two trials—first, the conviction of the company, and then a second trial of the directors and officers of that company?

Sir G. HEWART: I should, have thought it must depend on the circumstances of the case. The directors might not be obtainable, they might not be accessible, at the
moment of the first trial. If there was a trial of a company somebody would appear on behalf of the company. It might be that the directors would appear, some or all of them, or officers of the company. Then, if conviction followed, there would be a further trial in which the only question would be not whether the offence was made out but whether the director or officer, or both, then before the Court,. could satisfy the Court that he was not cognisant of what occurred.

Lord R. CECIL: I only want to ask one question—

The CHAIRMAN: I understand the Attorney-General to undertake to do his best to bring up approved words, and I think it rather a pity to go on.

Lord R. CECIL: I quite agree. I was only going to ask one question—whether the Attorney-General would explain to the Committee how ho differentiates between the case of a firm and the case of a company? In the case of a firm you have got to prove that some person you bring up, whoever he is, is actually guilty of an offence. Here you seem to get a general verdict against a number of people and then leave each to prove his innocence.

Sir G. HEWART: No doubt there is a distinction. The answer I give is this:A partnership firm consists of certain persons, two or three, or there may be more; a company consists of a very great many persons, shareholders and others. Where you are dealing with a firm, I imagine that the prosecution will be lodged against the members of the firm, unless there are facts known to the prosecution which absolved particular members of the firm. It might, be that that would have to be proved by evidence. But I ask myself the question which my Noble Friend puts to me, and supposing I were asked to direct a prosecution of a firm, in the absence of clear evidence. that certain persons were, in the words of this Clause, "ignorant that the act which constitutes the offence had taken place." I should certainly direct that the prosecution took place against all the members of the firm. Then we should have to prove each one of those persons knew. In the case of a company we take not the people who constitute the company, the shareholders, but we take the people who are responsible for the direction, and we say, "primâ facie you are all liable, but you may be able to prove that you do not know. "I agree that the two
things are not in the same plane. Why? Because the law has given special privileges, special position, to a company of limited liability. I cannot imagine a better way of dealing with the matter at present, but I will try to find one.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I wish to ask whether in the word "company" cooperative societies are included, or are they not?

Sir G. HEWART: They are not included.

Mr. SAMUEL: They are not touched by this Bill, then?

Sir G. HEWART: Every individual who is concerned is touched by this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: hope the House will not accept the soothing words of the Attorney-General, which really conceal a very deep difference of principle. He says that the Amendment as framed goes too far, but he gives no reasons. There would be no difficulty, in cases of guilt, for the Government to prove knowledge on the part of the guilty directors. All they have to do is to send for the secretary, order him to bring the minute book, see when the particular question at issue was discussed, see what directors were present, see who signed the letters, and take proceedings accordingly. The whole case really is that the Government want to pander to the cry "Hang the profiteers! It does not matter if we can get the right ones or not, we have got to hang someone." The President of the Board of Trade actually argued that, because directors got fees, therefore they were to be assumed guilty. Auditors get fees as well. There is this thing in common between the fees of the directors and the auditors, that they do not depend on profiteering; they are generally fixed fees for controlling the company, and whether the company make an undue profit on transactions or whether they do not their fees remain the same. So if you do really want to be vindictive—I will not say vindictive, but severe—surely the right person against whom you should proceed is the person who gets the benefit of the profit—not the director, but the shareholder. The director, perhaps, is getting £5 per meeting. The shareholder may be making thousands of pounds every year out of the profiteering, and I think it is a mere case of playing to the gallery to revolutionise the principle of the onus of proof by saying that
every director of a company—simply because, in certain quarters of the country, directors of a limited liability company are unpoular—is to be deprived of the principle of British law that he is to be assumed to be innocent until the Government take some steps to satisfy themselves that he is guilty.

Mr. NEWBOULD: I wish to ask the Attorney-General one question—whether the words in this Clause, "with his knowledge and consent," may be read, "with his knowledge or consent." I can quite well see many instances where directors may have knowledge of and may have consented to an increase of price, and I just want to know whether it may read "knowledge or consent" as well as "knowledge and consent''?

Sir G. HEWART: No, Sir, clearly not. The burden of proof to be put upon the director of a company which has been convicted is proof that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and without his consent.

Mr. NEWBOULD: In a case of which I had experience recently an increase of price was put to the vote at a board meeting. Some directors voted against the increase and others voted for the increase. Those directors who voted against the increase had the knowledge but had not given consent. According to the Attorney-General, although they had knowledge and refused their consent they are to be equally guilty with the others.

Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend completely misunderstands what I said. This is inserted for the benefit of the directors. Supposing the words were not there, the Bill would then provide that where a company is convicted under this Section of the Act "every director and officer of the company shall be deemed to be primâ facie," and there it would stop. Seriously, is it said that the words which follow are not a benefit to the director? What is the benefit? "Unless he proves that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and consent."

Mr. NEWBOULD: Would he have to prove both?

Sir G. HEWART: My hon. and learned Friend forgets the negative. Surely if he proves that he did not know it is clear that he did not consent. If he proves that he did not consent, it matters not that he knew.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Clause might be amended in these terms:
shall be guilty of the like offence when it is proved that the offence took place with his knowledge and consent.
That might meet the difficulty.

2.0 A.M.

Major ENTWISTLE: An hon. Member below the Gangway opposite asked a question as to whether there would be one trial or two. As the words stand in the Section there would be only one trial. The words read, "Where a person convicted under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence." That means he is not prosecuted again to be guilty of an offence. I pso facto when there is a conviction of a company there is a conviction of every director. I should say that the intention of the learned Attorney-General is that in case there is a conviction of the company and any director of the company is subsequently prosecuted, then the onus of proof shall lie on him to show that it

was without his knowledge and consent. As the words stand at present that is not what happens. Words ought to be inserted so that it would read, "Where a person under the Section is a company, then in the case of any director or officer of that company who is prosecuted," and that would overcome the difficulty. I see the learned Attorney-General shakes his head, but I think he should consider it to. see if there is a substantial difference.

Sir G. HEWART: I said we would consider it, and if it would meet the difficulty I would take out the word "and" and substitute the word "or."

Mr. INSKIP: I only desire to have it either that a. man is guilty until he is innocent or innocent until he is guilty. The Attorney-General's suggestion does not meet my point, and I wish to press my Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 125.

Division No. 101.]
AYES.
[2.4 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Raeburn, sir William


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Glyn, Major R.
Remer, J. B.


Atkey, A. R.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E)
Roundell. Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Bean, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Holmes, J. S.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Blair, Major Reginald
Johnstone, J.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stevens, Marshall


Briggs, Harold
Kiley, James Daniel
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
King, Commander Douglas
Vickers, D.


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Lindsay, William Arthur
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Clough, R.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Winterton, Major Earl


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Macquisten, F. A.
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, W. Lane



Davies, Sir Joseph (Crowe)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Perring, William George
Mr. Inskip and Major Lloyd Greame.


Forestier-Walker, L.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.


Baird, John Lawrence
Colvin, Brig. General R. B.
Hirst, G. H.


Baldwin, Stanley
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Jodrell, N. P.


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Doyle, N. Grattan
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Bell James (Ormskirk)
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Kellaway, Frederick George


Blades, Sir George R.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.


Briant, F.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Kidd, James


Bridgeman, William Clive
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Knights, Captain H.


Britton, G. B.
Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Flannery. Sir J. Fortescue
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)


Bromfield, W.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lort-Williams, J.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col, A. L. H
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Grundy, T. W.
M'Curdy, Charles Albert


Cape, Tom
Hailwood, A.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Carr, W. T.
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Hamilton, Major C. G C. (Altrincham)
Murray. William (Dumfries) 


Casey, T. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Nail, Major Joseph


Neal, Arthur
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Newbould, A. E.
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Townley, Maximilan G.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Seddon, J. A.
Wallace, J.


Norris Colonel Sir Henry G.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Parker, James
Sexton, James
Ward, w. Dudley (Southampton)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Western, Col. John W.


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Pratt, John William
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Purchase, H. G.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Raffan, Peter Wilson
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Young, Sir F. W, (Swindon)


Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Younger, Sir George


Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sugden, W. H.



Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sutherland, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Royce, William Stapleton
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Amendments made: At end of Subsection (4), insert the words "In any proceedings under this Section to which the Board of Trade is a party, costs may be awarded to or against the Board."—[Sir G. Hewart]

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "majority of the population," and insert instead thereof the words "public, or bring material, machinery, or accessories used in the production thereof."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Major GREAME: I have an earlier Amendment, which goes to the root of this matter, and has not been covered. It is to leave out Sub-section (5), and insert instead of thereof the following new Sub-section: "(5) This Act applies to such of the articles specified in the Schedule hereto as are not from time to time declared to be controlled articles."

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment fails, because there is no Schedule.. Unless I have the Schedule in front of me I cannot put the Amendment.

Major GREAME: If this Amendment is agreed to, shall I not be allowed at a later stage to move to insert the Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN: When the hon. and gallant Member has been a little longer in the House he will discover that that is a mistake which is frequently made. I must have the Schedule in front of me.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5); after the word "articles," to insert the words" and different provisions of this Act may be applied to different articles."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to have any explanation of these rather vague words? Although I have tried, I am afraid I cannot see what is aimed at.

Sir A. GEDDES: The object is quite clear. There are various provisions in the Bill, and it is laid down that the Board of Trade shall declare various articles, or class of articles, by Order—articles of a kind in common use by the public, or, according to the Amendment just made, material, machinery, or accessories used in the production thereof. The Amendment I am now moving is to provide various treatment for the various articles, if such be necessary. For example, provided that Clause 3 becomes part of the Act, it might not be necessary to allow a local authority to trade in machines. It might be desirable to allow them to trade in boots, but not in machinery for making boots, although machinery for making boots might be dealt with in another Order. If it were not provided for in some such way the whole thing might have to go together.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to add the words: "The Board of Trade shall have power to require any person to appear before them under this Act and give evidence on oath, and shall have power to authorise any person to administer the oath for the purpose." This is the Amendment which I promised my hon. Friend below the Gangway that I would move.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I find myself in considerable difficulty in voting that this Clause shall stand part of the Bill. It is not that I am not as keen as other hon. Members that profiteering shall be put an end to, nor that I am not anxious to see the Board of Trade equipped with the necessary power to deal with trusts and trade combinations, so
that prices may be lowered. I do not, however, believe that this Clause will be effective. Under it the Board of Trade has the power to fix prices, which I regard as most pernicious, because no power is given to the Board to see that traders in this country continue to import goods to be sold at the restricted prices, nor any power to see that home goods are not exported to places where there are no fixed prices. The result may be that, instead of lower prices, there may be a greater scarcity, and, consequently, higher prices. Higher prices may be borne by rich people, or by working men who receive commensurate wages; but what is going to happen to men and women with fixed incomes, or to pensioned Civil servants? I feel that it would be very dangerous to make this Clause part of the Bill. I would far sooner see the Government go ahead and sell the goods that they have here today at reasonable prices—that they instructed the War Office to sell their millions of yards of cloth, and so forth, at reasonable prices, and at fixed periods during the next twelve months. That would have a far greater effect in reducing prices than any Clause such as this.

Major GREAME: I must take this opportunity to draw attention to the extreme vagueness of the articles to which this Act applies. Of all the points which I mentioned on the Second Reading, I do not think anything obtained such unanimous support as the suggestion that the Government ought to specify the articles which are included. In my ignorance of procedure, I did not include a Schedule with my Amendment, because I felt that it was the business of the Government to inform this House and the country as to the scope of the Bill. After this Debate, I am left in much more doubt than I started with as to what these articles are to be. Some remarks which have been made by the Attorney-General suggest that meals in restaurants are included in the Bill. It may be a mutton cutlet. Is that, or is a horse or a house an article used by the majority of the people? Is a motor car? If so, what type of hot or car? Is whisky an article of common consumption? Then in the matter of clothes, what kind of clothes are articles in common use by the people? We all know a certain amount of clothing is necessary for everybody. Where does it begin and stop? Are pyjamas clothes? They are used, I suppose, by every male person who does not
wear a nightshirt. Then there are pyjamas of flannel and of silk. Can I go to the Board of Trade and complain about the price of the former but not of the latter? It is easy to be humorous about these things, but I suggest that they are serious matters for the persons who buy and sell such goods. The country does want to know what are the cases which come under the Bill. The Government must know what is in their minds. The tribunals should know. Are you going to give them a definition? One tribunal may say, "I do not regard this as an article in common use," and another will adopt a different standard. The Government should put a Schedule into this Bill setting out what are the articles that will come under it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have heard many views of lawyers and company directors, and I am quite convinced that this Bill is mischievous. We are in a panic about the profiteer, and the furious cry about profiteering. An unreasonable profit in one case may be a reasonable profit when all the circumstances of the case are known. The first profiteer was Joseph, who took the corn out of the land of Egypt. Profiteering is making a profit out of goods sold to your fellow man, and has up till now been a perfectly legal transaction. It may not be all right from the social point of view. There are men who say that a person, by taking a profit, is unsocial and wrong. Now we make it an offence. I do not know where it is going to end. But I do know that the greatest of all articles of production and consumption, the land, is left out of the Bill. The Amendment would take company directors out of the Bill. I ask is the Bill to apply to trade combines? I do not know why those who are opposed to the Bill should vote against Clause I unless they vote against the other Clauses.

Mr. RAFFAN: I ask the Attorney-General to say whether land is or is not in common use. It appears to me that it is but is left out of the Bill. If that definition of common use is to be applied it must apply to land. The Minister says it will not apply to farms and mines. The Land Acquisition. Bill applies only to land required by local authorities. But there is other land outside of that Bill, and bought and sold by private individuals. I ask why hon. Members should be so anxious to see that
land is left out expressly. If so, it certainly will not come, as it ought to do, under the definition of "articles in common use."

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Establish Local Committees, etc.)

(1) The Board of Trade may, as and when it appears to them necessary or expedient, establish, or require any local authority or authorities to, establish, local or other committees, to whom the Board may delegate any or all of their powers under this Act in respect of any articles or classes of articles, or sales, and the effect of any order by a committee under such delegated powers shall be the same as that of an order of the Board, and this Act shall have effect accordingly.

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Board may make regulations and give directions as to the constitu-

Question put, "That the Clause, as. amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 2.

Division No. 102.]
AYES.
[2.25 a.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Perring, William George


Agg-Gargner, Sir James Tynte
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Pratt, John William


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Atkey, A. R.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Purchase, H. G.


Baird, John Lawrence
Glyn, Major R.
Raeburn, Sir William


Baldwin, Stanley
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Remer, J. B.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnston, Major Harry
Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hailwood, A.
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Royce, William Stapleton


Blades, Sir George R,
Hamilton, Major C, G. C. (Altrincham)
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Blair, Major Reginald
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Bottomley, Horatio
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Seddon, J. A.


Briant, F.
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Briggs, Harold
Holmes, J. S.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Britton, G. B.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, W.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Jameson, Major J. G.
Simm, Col. M. T.


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Jodrell, N. P.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Johnstone, J.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Cape, Tom
Kellaway, Frederick George
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Carr, W. T.
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kidd, James
Sugden, W. H.


Casey, T. W.
King, Commander Douglas
Sutherland, Sir William


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Knights, Captain H.
Taloot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Clough, R.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Townley, Maximilan G.


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Tryon, Major George Clement


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Lort-Williams, J.
Vickers, D.


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Wallace, J.


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Lunn, William
Ward- Jackson, Major C. L.


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Weston, Colonel John W.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mitchell, William Lane
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Edge, Captain William
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Neal, Arthur
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Parker, James
Younger, Sir George


Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Flannery, Sir J- Fortescue
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col.


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Sanders and Mr. Dudley Ward.




NOES.


Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Commander Kenworthy and Mr. Kennedy Jones

tion, powers, and procedure of committees established under this Section, and the districts for which they shall act, which regulations and directions shall have effect as though enacted in this Act:

Provided that such regulations shall provide for a right of appeal by the seller from any order or decision of local committees to appeal tribunals appointed by the Board for the purpose, and for the constitution, powers, and procedure of such appeal tribunals, and shall make such provision as appears to the Board necessary for the prevention of frivolous complaints.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "establish, or."
The object of this Amendment is that the Board of Trade shall not have power of themselves to establish local committees, but to require the local authorities to establish the committees, the object being to make these committees more democratic and not simply the nominees of the Board of Trade.

Sir A. GEDDES: This Amendment, if it were carried, would have the effect of making it impossible to establish machinery to investigate the action of any large trade combinations, trusts, or companies producing for wholesale sale or otherwise. There would be merely local investigations. I am sure the hon. Member cannot realise that that would be the effect of the Amendment.

Mr. RAFFAN: I do not desire that this should follow, and for that reason I could not support the Amendment, but may we take it that, in every case where it is proposed to set up a local committee, the local authority shall, in the first instance, be given the opportunity? If that were so, personally I should be quite satisfied—that is to say, that where you propose to set up a local committee you would not, in the first instance, ignore the local authority, but, following the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind, it would be asked in the first instance.

Sir A. GEDDES: Certainly. There is also the central machinery for investigations to be set up under the same Clause. There might be a recalcitrant local authority.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But surely the Board of Trade themselves will carry out the large inquiries into the ramifications of trusts. What I hope is, that the Board of Trade is not going to pack its local committees with its own nominees.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. G.THORNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "require," and to insert instead thereof the word "authorise."
The expression used is "require any local authority to establish a local committee or local committees." It is one thing to authorise the local authorities, it
is quite another thing to direct them to do it. In every case where the local authorities are prepared to co-operate in this, then require is not needed, but I can conceive of a case in which local authorities may say that the proposal itself is so different that they find it impossible to comply satisfactorily. It seems to me, therefore, very unfair and very unjust that they should be required to do such a thing and therefore I desire to substitute the word "authorise."

Sir A. GEDDES: I have no objection to accepting this Amendment; it makes no difference.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "committees" ["local or other committees"] to insert the words "composed as to two-thirds of the membership or representatives of labour, co-operative societies, and consumers."
The Amendment leaves a third which could be appointed or selected from other bodies, and I have the precedent of the local committees in connection with food control in asking the Government to accept this Amendment. We believe that a Committee composed as suggested will command the confidence of the public in any place where a committee is set up, and I hope that, with the object of the smooth working of the Act, the Government will accept the Amendment, which I now move.

Sir A. GEDDES: This Amendment as it stands is—as I am sure my hon. Friend realises—quite impossible to accept. It suggests that even for most highly-technical examinations, which might require to be carried out by skilled chartered accountants or some other skilled persons, these should be excluded. That is to cover the central tribunal as well as the local. In so far as the local tribunal is concerned, that will be dealt with in the Regulations, and while I cannot undertake to recognise Labour, all classes of consumers will, naturally, be represented on such bodies.

Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say the proportion of those representatives he will recommend to put on the committee?

Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot say offhand, but there will be adequate representation for all classes.

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is not prepared to allow some representative from organised Labour as he did on the tribunals set up under the Military Service Act? You established the precedent then, and I think it could very well be done in this particular measure, for while you are having consumers represented, it is quite obvious, from statements made earlier in the evening by an hon. Member, that they have not his confidence in the way they are set up or the manner they conduct their business. If we can have an assurance that the proportion of Labour representatives which can represent directly, not in the ordinary consuming sense, where you select individuals here and there, but where you can have individuals nominated by trade unions and co-operative scoieties, then they would have confidence in that tribunal. Many of the tribunals set up under the Military Service Act had not the confidence of the people, because the direct representation on these from Labour and other parties the Government considered to be adequately represented by people outside.

Sir A. GEDDES: I shall say this, that we will arrange in the Regulations for fair representations of all classes and divisions. I am not prepared to recognise trade unions as a separate sort of digestion and with a separate body to be clothed from other human beings. If we adequately represent the general consumer, it is fair to assume that they will be represented, but it is not reasonable to expect that because a person is a member of a trade union, or co-operative society, or of a church, or anything else, that he is something different from other sections of the community.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: You are quite aware that in many districts you have no Labour representation on county councils, town councils, and other bodies. In these districts you have trades councils and the Labour party, and the people would have more confidence if these local tribunals were appointed from them than if they were appointed from someone outside.

Sir A. GEDDES: I think I have met this case quite fairly. These are not political bodies. They arc not designed to favour any political theory. They approximate more to a jury, and it would be an extraordinary suggestion if it were put forward that a jury was to consist if so many
members of trade unions, of co-operative societies and something else. It is in their capacity as citizens, and when I have said that the Regulations will provide for representation of all sections of the community, I mean there will be representation from outside the local authority if it does not cover all classes.

Mr. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that some of these local authorities who are empowered or authorised to set up local committees will see to it that those who are most directly affected by profiteering are not adequately represented, but the people who are the profiteers will be represented on the tribunals. That is not the way the Government took when they wanted the assistance of the members of the trade unions. They were pleased to give Labour more adequate representation on committees, for the reason that these men on these committees served the purpose of the Government better than putting on shopkeepers or anybody else. It he will give us a promise that Labour will have a certain proportion—if he thinks two-thirds is too much—on these local committees to deal with prices we shall be satisfied. I rose to point out that on the local Food Control Committees Labour has a statutory representation. I do say we are not asking too much in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us what we have already.

Sir A. GEDDES: The local authorities who will be authorised to set up these bodies, are democratically elected bodies. They are the selected representatives of the community, and if they have put up profiteers so much the worse for the taste of the community. I have said that the Regulations will provide for fair representation of all sections of the community. That means that there must be in the Regulations provisions which will make that sure, and if the local authority, through the slackness or remissness of the local population, is not really representative, there will have to be a reinforcement, from outside, of people to represent all sections and interests.

Mr. NEWBOULD: The right hon. Gentleman has given expression to a very unfortunate sentiment, namely, that if the local authority happens to be composed mainly of profiteers, then in that particu-
lar district profiteers will get off scot-free, because the tribunal will ipso facto be composed of them.

Sir A. GEDDES: Really, I must protest against any suggestion of that kind.

Mr. SIMMS: I want to appeal to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin to withdraw his Amendment. There are many districts in which there are no trades councils, but where there are, perhaps, two or three co-operative societies. Who is going to make the selection. I am in

a district that will have a tribunal, It is almost purely a suburban area, occupied by the suburban aristocracy, and yet the council only selected three or four Labour men to represent Labour on the military tribunal in that area. What happens in a military sense will also happen here, and it will result in injustice for Labour.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 136.

Division No. 103.]
AYES.
[2.54 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Royce, William Stapleton


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Briant, F.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, W.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cape, Tom
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Newbould, A. E.



Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Mr. Tyson Wilson end Mr. T. Griffiths.


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)





NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Parker, James


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Perring, William George


Atkey, A. R.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pratt, John William


Baird, John Lawrence
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Baldwin, Stanley
Glyn, Major R.
Purchase, H. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Raeburn, Sir William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Green J. F. (Leicester)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Barnston, Major Harry
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E, (B. St. E.)
Remer, J. B.


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Hailwood, A
Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. c. H. (Devizes)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Blades, Sir George R.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Blair, Major Reginald
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Seddon, J. A.


Briggs, Harold
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Britton, G. B.
Inskip, T. W. H.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jameson, Major J. G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Jodrell, N. P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Johnstone, J.
Simm, Col. M. T.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Carr, W. T.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Casey, T. W.
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Stevens, Marshall


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Kidd, James
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Clay, Captain H. H Spender
Kiley, James Daniel
Sugden, W. H.


Clough, R.
King, Commander Douglas
Sutherland, Sir William


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Knights, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S)


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Townley, Maximilan G.


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Vickers, D.


Craig, Col Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Lort-Williams, J.
Williams. Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Winterton, Major Earl


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Edwards. Major J. (Aberavon)
Mitchell, William Lane
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Younger, Sir George


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Neal, Arthur



Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Talbot and Captain F. Guest


Forestier-Walker, L.

3.0 A.M.

Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "committees" ["to establish, local or other committees"], to insert the words "on which there shall be representatives of women. "I am sure I may expect the ready acceptance of this Amendment. If the question of profiteering is a grievance anywhere, it is so in the home and to the mother. Women are the victims of the profiteer to a much greater extent than men are. There are plenty of precedents in favour of this proposal. Women have been admitted on the education authorities and are represented on many other local bodies which have control. [Hon. Members: "Agreed !"] I have no desire to talk if the Amendment is going to be accepted.

Sir A. GEDDES: This is not the place in which the provision should appear, if it is to be inserted. There is another Amendment which I will accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir A. S. BENN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "powers." ["powers under this Act"], to insert the words" save and except the power to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."

Sir A. GEDDES: This proposal would limit the powers of local committees to the limited service set out in Sub-section (1,b). The proposal is that they shall not have power to take proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The Board of Trade is taking power to issue Regulations and Orders to these committees which would limit their initiative. They will give some explanation of the powers which it is desirable to give. The right of prosecuting and taking prosecutions before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in proper cases is one of those powers, and I can see no objection to that, so long as the Board of Trade is taking the responsibility and is guarding against prosecutions that would be frivolous.

Sir A. S. BENN: Do I understand that the authority of the Board of Trade will be necessary?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, and I understand it will be dealt with in the Regulations

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DOYLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "sales"
["classes of articles, or sales"], to insert the words "except the powers granted to the Board in Section one, Sub-section (5)."

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think this Amendment is necessary. I have no objection to the principle, but I cannot conceive that any human being could believe that the Board of Trade would find itself unable to delegate these powers. There is an Amendment which might be inserted here, "except the power of the Board to fix prices." This is limited to certain prices. If the hon. Member will propose it in that form, I will accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "sales" ["classes o articles, or sales"], insert the words "except the power of the Board to fix prices."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sales" ["classes of articles, or sales"], to insert the words
such members of committees to be selected from a panel, and to have in no case any personal trade interest, direct or indirect, with the article under consideration, nor to number when in session more than five.
Looking at the Amendment as put down in the light of day yesterday, and looking at it now in the light of early morning, I am not quite sure that the wording is the best that could be chosen. The object is to ensure that interested persons will not be sitting in judgment upon their trade rivals. One would not like to see a butcher sitting on a tribunal and deciding the case of another butcher in the same town. It might happen under the panel system that five drapers would sit to decide the case of a butcher, and that butchers similarly would sit to decide the case of a linendraper. Even cases of that kind would be less objectionable than to take a local butcher as a judge over a rival in the same trade. The limitation of members to five is intended to stop unnecessary expense, as the expenses have to be paid of the members from the panel, and in order that no injury may be done to any member of the tribunal who may be concerned with the cases

Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend has really anticipated in this Amendment what is contained in the last part of Clause 2. It is provided by Clause 2 that the Board shall have power in the Regulations to provide for the constitution,.
powers and procedure of such tribunals. It is quite obvious that under Clause 2, Sub-clause 1, the Board is to delegate its powers to these local committees and constitute them. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It contemplates that there shall be a panel, and it contemplates the number five. It might be difficult to make a panel, and might be unnecessary to have five; very often three might be enough. I suggest that this is a matter which might well be left to the discretion of the Board of Trade and the Regulations.

Mr. ACLAND: The Attorney-General did not give any assurance that the point, the other point in the Amendment to which he did not refer, would really be met.

Sir G. HEWART: You mean as to interests?

Mr. ACLAND: Yes.

Sir G. HEWART: I thought that was too obvious. Of course, it will be provided that persons shall not sit who have any personal trade interest, direct or indirect. Words to that effect will be added.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think the answer of the Attorney-General is altogether satisfactory. As I understand it, the point is that it is necessary to specify in the Act of Parliament that one trade rival shall not sit in judgment upon another. That is the whole point of the Amendment, which is a very simple and a. very important one. I do not think it Is altogether to the point that the Attorney-General should say that, of course, when the Board coma to make Regulations they will allow for such cases, and will prevent the possibility, which my hon. Friend has suggested would arise in the Bill as it stands, of one trade rival sitting in judgment upon another. If the Committee bear in mind what happened tinder a very similar form of institution, the tribunals under the National Service Act, they will know—there was no concealment—that in some cases trade rivalry did influence the decisions of the tribunals. There is no question about that. It is an unpleasant accusation to have to make, but there is probably not an hon. Member of the Committee who could not give personal instances from his own constituency of cases of that kind. I could give cases where grossest injustice was done to in-
dividuals by members of the tribunals who were interested, directly or indirectly, in the form of business in which the man appearing before the tribunal v. as also interested. Under this Bill, there are going to be tribunals which are going to have powers over a man's business greater than any powers which the Government exercised under the Defence of the Realm Act. And to say that you are not going to safeguard a man in any particular trade, it may be the grocery trade or the butchery trade, against the possible oppression of a rival in the same trade—that you are not going to do it by Act of Parliament but by Regulation, is, in my opinion, an abuse of the functions of this Committee. It is very typical and very symptomatic of what the Government do. The Government have not a consistent policy on many things, but in one thing they are consistent and that is in their liking for proceedings by Orders in Council and Regulations rather than by legislation. The reasons are obvious. It is much easier to proceed by Regulation or by Order in Council than it is to devise a Bill or to allow for difficulties which may arise by legislation. I think that is a thoroughly bad and thoroughly vicious principle, and I very much hope that my hon. Friends will go to a Division upon it, and I hope the traders of the country will also notice the result of the Division and those who vote against this Amendment. In my opinion those who vote against, this Amendment are voting against a proposal to save some of the smallest traders in the country from the most grevious form of tyranny and injustice that may be done to them under the Bill as it stands by their trade rivals. The words of the Amendment are perfectly simple, and I see no reason why the Government should not accept them. I very much hope the Government will alter their decision and accept the Amendment, or at any rate, words to carry it out.

Sir A. GEDDES: This is an Amendment which looks very much better on paper than it can possibly be in practice. It is a very easy Amendment to make a speech about, to suggest that it is very unfair and to say that no one in the same committee should be a member of the same trade or occupation as a man who comes before them. But you have to remember that this limit, which it is now sought to set upon the power of the Government,
applies not only to the local but to the central branches of the investigation, and I can picture nothing more impossible than to hope to get an investigation of a satisfactory kind without the assistance of experts in the actual business under investigation. It is a perfectly hopeless proposition to suggest that men who know nothing whatever of the processes are to be the sole members of an investigating committee. It sounds very nice to talk about trade rivals unfairly using their position. It is said that that has happened under National Service. Tribunals were not a part of National Service, but that is by the way. It happened so rarely throughout the whole of the working of the tribunals, in any way that could be proved, that one can only say that it is really a most unfair accusation to bring against these bodies. It really would be quite impossible to carry out the sort of investigation that the House has authorised with the Second Reading of the Bill without the assistance of experts in the trade to be investigated; but by regulation, so far as local bodies are concerned, we will be able to prevent any unfair trading.

Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: The learned Attorney-General said that as a matter of course this supervision would find its place among the Regulations to be laid down by the Board of Trade, and it was rather a surprise to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that owing to the possibility that this Clause might apply to the central tribunal he could not accept it. Could he accept the provision eliminating those with a direct trade interest, limiting it only to the case of local tribunals. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey attaches much importance to the panel system or to the number of the panel, but we do attach very much importance to the eliminations of men with a direct trade interest not only because of the possibility of more or less grave personal considerations coming in, but also because we feel it is very unfair to the trader to have to show his books and disclose prices to members of the same trade as himself in competition with his own business. Quite apart from that, if it is the case that the Board of Trade is going to adopt this principle in spite of this House they ought to accept it and put it into the Bill. It is a matter which arouses great feeling in this House, that we ought to control these tribunals, and if the Gov-
ermnent have made up their mind that they are going to do this why do not they avoid friction and put it into the Bill. If oil this point on which there is no difference of opinion they would accept an Amendment of this kind they would do a great deal for the rapid progress of the Kill.

Sir A. GEDDES: If before the Amendment providing for the representation of women on the tribunals hon. Members specially interested will submit an Amendment that on the local committee traders will not sit who have a direct interest in the case we will do our best to meet them..

Sir A. S. BENN: I have an Amendment down dealing with that and limiting it only to local committees. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept that.

Mr. KILEY: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. They will make the proceedings of the tribunals a farce. If there was an inquiry into meat prices they would have to deal with a butcher, and if there was a butcher on the tribunal he would have to retire. If the next case is a draper, and there is a draper on the tribunal, he would have to retire. So you go through the proceedings, and you have a kind of pantomime. If you have responsible local men you have to assume that each will do his duty, and if he does not do his duty, surely the other members of the tribunal will act as correctives! As regards the limitation of the numbers, the President of the Board of Trade will have to be careful to see that when the tribunal meets there will be a quorum. Many of us know that in local districts you cannot get more than half, and with the limit at five you are likely to have some delay. For this reason, I do hope he will not accept the Amendment.

Sir E. WILD: I am not in general sympathy with this Amendment, and I am glad to hear the conciliatory note from the President of the Board of Trade. Speaking for myself—if I may make a suggestion to my hon. Friend—we have shown our principles, and I do think we should not at this late hour go through an unnecessary Division on this matter therefore, I do not intend to take part in the operations of a Division. Inadvertently I was led into a Division half an hour ago which I thought would be a serious Division.

Mr. A. SHAW: I am somewhat amazed by my hon, and learned Friend's extraordinary assumption that the lateness of the hour makes some difference to the principle. If I believe that there are important matters involved in this Bill, I shall take every occasion to divide where principle is concerned, regardless of the lateness of the hour and the convenience of Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I do not think the President of the Board of Trade realises the importance of an aspect of the question we are discussing now. It is not merely a question of setting one Member to judge another. It is rather from the point of view of a person in the same trade who it may be is interested in setting up an exorbitant standard of profit by which he can gain as well as the person whose freedom he secures. From that point of view I support the Amendment. I am glad my right hon. Friend accepts it in principle, but his acceptance of it in principle is mitigated by his somewhat hostile tone. It practically contradicted the speech of the right hon. Member on his left (the Attorney-General). I ask him to believe that the public are rather suspicious of Board of Trade Committees, and I do not desire to give a carte blanche, without any security, to people who will have all too grave powers over the lives and destinies of hundreds of thousands of the humblest people in this country.

Mr. SEDDON: I was rather surprised at the tone of the two speeches delivered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General took exception because he said, perhaps, not five would be wanted, and it would add to expense. I am quite sure my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment would be prepared to accept no more than five. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade goes further, and says that if it was to leave the locality and become a larger issue of national importance, then you would want experts to decide in any particular trade. Surely there never was a more fallacious argument advanced in this House than the danger of having rivals on local committees. There is a graver danger in having men deal with larger issues from a national point of view. I am simply mystified that the two right hon. Gentlemen, the one advancing one case and the other another case, refuse to accept this very reasonable Amendment, which, in. my opinion, would give
much more satisfaction and will remove a sense of grievance. As an hon. Member on the other side said, there would be a kind of pantomime, a baker withdrawing when the case was that of a bilker, a butcher withdrawing in the case of a butcher, and so on. Of course, in Licensing Sessions it is expected that a magistrate who has any interest in a matter shall withdraw.

Mr. KILEY: If he has any personal interest, certainly.

Mr. SEDDON: I say that any people who are interested in the sale of liquor, or have any interest in its manufacture, are expected to withdraw from the Licensing Bench when licences are being dealt with, and what applies to licences should apply, in the interests of the poor, so far as local trades are here concerned. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will stand by his Amendment, and press it to a Division, unless the Government assumes a more reasonable frame of mind.

Sir G. HEWART: It has been suggested by more than one speaker that there is some opposition between what has been said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and by myself with reference to this Amendment. I personally am not conscious of any such opposition or contradiction. The words of this Amendment arc, "No personal or trade interest, direct or indirect, in the article under consideration." The article under consideration, I should have thought, refers to the particular transaction. Is it seriously suggested by my hon. Friend that in a matter, for example, relating to the baking industry, no baker should be represented on the local committee, and that in a matter connected with the business of a butcher no butcher should be represented on the committee, and so on?

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Yes.

Sir G. HEWART: Is it really suggested that you cannot get a local committee of persons carrying on business, who can fairly adjudicate upon the reasonableness of the profit made in a particular business, if one of their number has some personal experience of that line of business himself? Surely the distinction is not between one business and another, but between one transaction and another. I thought my hon. Friend's object was that no person should adjudicate who was directly or indirectly concerned in the
transaction; but it is a very serious matter to say that in determining what is a reasonable or an unreasonable profit you are to exclude from the Committee any person who has actual experience of or interest in the business in which the article is produced.

Mr. JONES: No.

Sir G. HEWART: I mean experience or interest in the sense that he is carrying on that kind of business. When I said it was obvious that that was a matter to be dealt with by regulation, I meant that the regulation would prevent any person from adjudicating or assisting in adjudicating on a transaction in which he had a personal interest, not that we should exclude any person who had knowledge or experience in the conduct of that trade. To follow out my hon. Friend's argument, we should have booksellers adjudicating on the profits of a butcher, linen drapers upon the profits of a baker, and so on. That would be the knowledge and experience that would be brought to bear. I am sure the Committee observes that what is being dealt with here is not the persons who are determining guilt or innocence in a case of prosecution, but persons who are conducting an investigation as to what is a reasonable price under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 2. I should have thought that the exclusion of an interest in the particular transaction was a. matter that might well be left to Regulations; but if it is indeed the sense of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and of those who agree with him, that we are to exclude from taking any part in adjudications upon the price of any commodity any person actually engaged in dealing in that kind of commodity, that is a totally different matter, and one that requires very careful consideration.

Mr. NEAL: There is an Amendment on the Paper asking that there may be at least one representative of the trade upon each tribunal. That Amendment was put down at the express request of the Grocers' Federation of Great Britain, which realises how hopeless the tribunals would be if there were no practical men on them.

Mr. HAILWOOD: I hope the Government will stand firm on this matter, and will not be led away by the bandying about of the words "butcher" and "baker." As a matter of fact, butchers
and bakers will not be affected at all, because their trades are controlled, and this Bill does not apply to them. But I think it shows a very poor opinion of those trades if it is thought that they are incapable of giving a fair judgment on a matter of public importance such as this. I happen to be a baker, and I have been elected to this House, and am also a magistrate. Is it to be assumed, supposing my services were called in, that, while I am considered fit to be a magistrate and a Member of Parliament, my mind is going to be suddenly warped and I am going to try and do some ill deed against my fellow trader or an injustice to the public? I can conceive nothing more cruel than to ask a tribunal to adjudicate on a case when its members know nothing about the trade in question. If we are to have any justice at all, all sides should be represented. Earlier in the Debate there was a demand from the other side of the House that members of trade unions and co-operative societies should form a majority of these tribunals. Surely the members of co-operative societies would be interested parties, and if we have this from the Labour Benches they must have confidence in these people. I think that the fewer the restrictions put on the local authorities in the choice of their delegates or representatives the better. The local authorities are the elected representatives of the people, and I contend that they are quite qualified to choose the right men for this purpose.

Mr. JONES: I do not quite understand where we are on the matter of this Amendment which I have moved. First of all, I understood that the Attorney-General gave an assurance that the spirit of the Amendment would be embodied in the Regulations.

Sir G. HEWART: Relating to the article under consideration.

Mr. JONES: Then the President of the Board of Trade threw the whole thing over and said he would not have it, and later he said he would take it in some other form if we could bring it in in a later Amendment—some form of words which confined it to the local committee. Despite all that we have heard from the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood) and from the opposite benches, I suggest that it is a bad principle to ask a trader to sit in judgment on his rival. It involves a conflict between his interest and his duty, and I suggest that it should be avoided at
all costs. Unless I have an assurance that the principle of this Amendment will be accepted so far as the local committees are concerned, I shall proceed to a Division. Perhaps some apology is due from me for speaking again on my Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON: Those who have a great knowledgs of the Rules of the House will tell the hon. Member who has just spoken that he was quite right. I do not think the hon. Member appreciated the danger that lies in the Bill as it stands. Take a small town in which there were two bakers; one might be a fierce rival of the other, not only in business, but they might also be political and religious rivals. Some of the difficulties in regard to those local committees were brought before the Committee in charge of profiteering. [An Hon. Member: "Why bakers?"] Well, make it grocers, if you like. Would anyone say that a particular grocer in a small town is a fit and proper person to decide whether a grocer in the same town has or has not been guilty of profiteering? I certainly say it would not be right. The Government suggests that if you exclude the people who are interested in the trade you will not get the benefit of expert knowledge. Have they never heard of the retired tradesman, who has just as much knowledge of the trade, whether direct or indirect, as anyone else, but has now no financial interest in it, and therefore has no trade rivalry? One Gentleman said that a trade federation bad asked for the support of the Government to its request that representatives of that trade should be on the committees. That seems to me an additional argument against the Bill. What would one of these people be likely to be? Would they be too kind or unkind? You want people who would be impartial, and I say it is possible to obtain these people, and that they need not necessarily be people who are engaged in a particular trade. The Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade must both know that the tribunals which were set up under the Military Service Act did not always act impartially. I recollect many cases where local tribunals were actuated by trade sympathies or trade jealousies under the Military Service Act. There is no Member of the House who could not give many such cases in his own constituency. I think the Government have made a valuable concession in saying that they will try to apply the principle to the local committees although
they have not accepted this Amendment as it stands. But I am deeply suspicious of any promises made by the Government to put things into Bills at later stages. We have many examples of such promises having been made and the Amendment when it appeared has not carried out the promise made by the Government. I again insist that the Government should proceed by legislation. After all we are here to legislate and not to refer things to the Board of Trade to make Orders on them. I think that this is a serious instrument of tyranny. Leaving out these things and leaving it to boards to make Orders of all kinds is wrong.

Sir A. GEDDES: In a few moments I will propose to include words at the proper place. I have the words drafted, which I think will meet the case. They are, '' Shall provide that a member of a committee established by a local authority shall be disqualified from acting in any case where he is a trade competitor of the person against whom the complaint under investigation has been lodged, and."

Mr. KILEY: What about a trade rivalry between people who are three or four miles apart?

The CHAIRMAN: We had better deal with those points when the Amendment comes on.

Mr. NEAL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "committee" ["any Order by a committee"],to insert the words" made in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section (b) of this Act,"

Sir G. HEWART: I should have thought this was covered by the words in the Bill, "the effect of any Order by a committee under such delegated powers shall be the same as an Order of the board."

Amendment negatived.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Act" ["enacted in this Act"], to insert the words
Provided that every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days from the date on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under.

Sir A. GEDDES: I accept.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "regulations" ["such regulations shall provide"], to insert the words
shall provide that a member of a committee established by a local authority shall be disqualified from acting in any case where he is a trade competitor of the person against whom the complaint under investigation has been lodged, and

Mr. KILEY: I wish to know whether the Government has got any definition of a "trade competitor"? What is the distance required within which a man becomes a trade competitor? Is there any limitation?

Mr. NEAL: It might be met by giving the person brought before the tribunal the right of challenge.

Sir A. GEDDES: That is a point we were discussing here just now. It is perhaps the best way of doing it—by including that in the regulation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "purpose" ["for the purpose"], to insert the words" such tribunals to include a majority of members trained in assessing the value of evidence."
This deals with the composition of the Appeal Tribunals which are to be set up. It seems to me, whatever size you make them, it is desirable that there should be a majority on them of members trained in assessing the value of evidence. Otherwise you may find some very extraordinary evidence being given before your county tribunals.

Mr. HOLMES: We have had a great discussion on this Bill as to the definition of profiteering, in which the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has taken a great part. Will he now explain to the House the definition of "people trained in assessing the value of evidence"?

Mr. JONES: Lawyers, solicitors, magistrates, justices of the peace, and Members of Parliament.

Sir G. HEWART: I find great difficulty in understanding the phrase. I have never seen the phrase "trained in assessing the value of evidence." I do not know who are the persons nor what is the training suggested. Who would come within the ambit of this definition? Who would be excluded? I should have thought myself it would have been sufficient to leave
it to the Board of Trade to appoint persons on the tribunals. But we have got as far as this—that in the opinion of the hon. Member a Member of Parliament is a person trained in the assessing of evidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Unless he is a Minister !"] A Member of Parliament with the exception of a Minister. If that is so, is there not room for everybody?

Amendment negatived.

Major GREAME: I beg to move at the end, to add the words "provided also that such Regulations shall provide representation of women on all local committees." I think that is a proposition which the Committee—

Sir A. GEDDES: I accept.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: In a sense we are all representative of the people, and the inclusion of, say, a Member of Parliament or any member of a properly elected body whose constituency included women, would be covered by this. What we want is not to have representatives of the women, but the women themselves.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "representation." find to insert instead thereof the word "inclusion."

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
Provided also that any such Regulation shall not be deemed to be a statutory Rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
Really I put this down as a consequential Amendment in the event of the Minister insisting on it, but I do not want to move it unless he really does want it.

Sir A. GEDDES: I will not insist on this, but I believe, merely from the point of view of procedure, that it is right it should be inserted, to save trouble.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ACLAND: I would like to ask the Government, it being now four o'clock, whether they are still of the same opinion that they were one and a-half hours ago, and intend to finish this Bill, afterwards taking the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill?

HON. MEMBERS: Go on!

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Authorise Local Authorities to Trade.)

The Board of Trade may, if they think fit, authorise local authorities, subject to such conditions as the Board may impose, to purchase and sell any article, or articles of any class, to which this Act applies, and any local authority so authorised shall have all necessary powers for the purpose

4.0 A.M.

Sir A. S. BENN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "if they think fit," and to insert instead thereof, the words "if they find it necessary."
We are quite willing to be guided by the Board of Trade if the President thinks it should be done away with.

Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid I do not appreciate a great difference between the two sets of words. If there is any difference I should like to know.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that trading by local authorities under this Section shall be self-supporting and involve no charge upon the rates."
The object of my Amendment is to prevent a trader being burdened by the subsidising of municipal trading under this Bill. I do not think it is a power which at this hour needs elaboration, but there is this additional reason for some such provision. It is quite possible that in certan districts a great deal of public inconvenience might be caused by the fact that in the local authority's shop uneconomical prices might be charged, prices with which the shopkeeper could not possibly compete, and which might arouse a great deal of unfounded suspicion of profiteering against those who had to carry on the business on economic lines. I think the object of the Government is rather a moral object, the object of improving the morale of the country in regard to trade and conduct, and any
disturbing factor of this kind, the competition of subsidised goods with legtimate traders, will defeat the end of the Bill, and steps will be taken to prevent that. I hope, therefore, that in the form I have it down—or in some other form which might be preferred by the Attorney-General—the Government may accept it

Sir A. GEDDES: I think it will be quite obvious that an Amendment of this sort would sterilise all action. Substantially, this same thing is provided for in the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir F. Lowe), and we shall be prepared to accept that.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Then I would move my Amendment in that form—to add the words "but such conditions shall, as far as possible, ensure that any local authority so purchasing and selling shall proceed on a commercial basis and not by way of subsidy at the expense of the ratepayers."

Earl WINTERTON: Of the last five Amendments we have had three accepted by the Government, and it has removed what would otherwise have been a very serious danger of a system of extended municipal trading not for the purposes intended under the Bill but municipal trading for the love of municipal trading.

Sir E. WILD: I cannot possibly understand my hon. Friend below the Gangway. I think municipal trading has been fully condemned except in the case of tramways, and things of that kind, that if the House is in favour of the municipality being allowed to compete with the private trade I could not submit to allowing it to compete with the trades people.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I only ask whether the words preceding "a commercial basis" will make it necessary for a municipal authority in trading to make allowance for rates to itself, otherwise it will be in a position of favour as against other traders.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to ask what is meant here. If volunteers in the municipality are going to work for nothing in the shops—retired colonels and so on—and do not draw any money or remuneration, and their daughters give their assistance for nothing at all as during the War, is that a commercial basis. If not it is very unfair-competition to the traders in the town.
I think we should have some words if possible to say that there will be some accountancy to say what steps will be taken. We do not want to drive out the struggling tradesman, the young man discharged from the Army. We want some better distinction. I can foresee all sorts of happenings otherwise.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not know whether the advisers of the Government have looked up the Private Bills in which this matter has, to my knowledge, been frequently dealt with. I think there are model Clauses framed to prevent the rates being used to subsidise municipal trading against private trading. I do not know whether the Government have looked up these precedents, though, from the recklessness with which this Bill appears to have been put together, I should think that probably they have not. Now it is ten minutes past four, and we are asked by the Government to enter upon this discussion, involving a principle of the greatest importance, setting a precedent which—whether rightly or wrongly I do not inquire—will be put to us in all the discussions on this subject for many years to come; and the House is absolutely and obviously not physically fit to enter upon such a question. At any rate, I myself am obviously physically unfit to enter upon a discussion of this magnitude. I trust those who are the guardians of the public here—I can no longer describe the House of Commons as such—will note the conditions under which legislation of this kind is being carried through, and will call the attention of the public to the way in which legislation under the present Government is done.

Mr. PERRING: The suggestion has been made that the municipalities shall trade on a commercial basis, but it seems to me that that is no guarantee that the trading generally may not involve a loss. Trading is more difficult to-day than it has been at any time. Nobody knows the value of anything. When things were stabilised we knew their value, but to-day it is very difficult. The municipalities, if they are going to trade, should have expert assistance, and should set up a regular staff to deal with the class of goods which they are supposed to deal in. That being so, the municipality starting to trade will be in exactly the same position as a private individual in the sense that the trading may involve a pri-
vate individual in bankruptcy, and a municipality in a serious loss. That being the case, I think that at this hour we should not proceed to sanction the giving of permission to a municipality to trade, with the mere proviso that it shall be on a commercial basis. That in itself does not guarantee, to my satisfaction at any rate, that it will not involve a loss. If a municipality enters upon trade it does so with the danger of involving a loss. I do not think that is a right thing to do, and it has been suggested that it would be subsidising trade. I do not think the ratepayers should be called upon to back an enterprise in which a loss may be made which they may have to make up out of their own pockets. I hope the Committee will seriously pause, and not agree to this apparent promise, which does not make the position any better.

Mr. G. THORNE: I understand that the Government has accepted this Amendment, but I cannot myself see how the local authority can possibly carry it on on a commercial basis if they are limited to six months. To do it at all properly would require a longer time. They would have to make their preparations and get all the necessary conveniences. With the object of securing time for that, and desiring, as I do, that when it is done it shall be on a commercial basis. I have put down an Amendment at the end of the Paper to the effect that this Clause shall be placed outside the limit of six months.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to give us any explanation of what "a commercial basis" means?

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. STEVENS: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 3.
Here we have a Clause of five lines, containing what would easily occupy an Act of Parliament, and providing, I think, for the first time, without any precedent, for the sale of merchandise by municipalities. I have not heard a word of reason why this Clause is necessary in this Bill. The Clause has been considered and discussed, and its promoters are supposed to have given us some information in regard to it. What is it that we are voting on? Why should this House be asked to pass a Clause which, as I have said, in normal
times would require an Act of Parliament to provide for it, and which would never, in normal times, be passed by this House? I should like to hear some explanation from the representatives of the Government of the reason for the insertion of this Clause

Mr. S. SAMUEL: This Clause is a reproduction of a Bill which was introduced into this House about two months ago, entitled the Local Authorities (Enabling) Bill. I opposed it strenuously, and it was defeated in this House by 150 votes. It was introduced by hon. Members opposite. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that the Government should, within two months, introduce, in one Clause, this substitute for a Bill which was rejected by this House lees than two months ago. I think the principle involved in this Clause is absolutely wrong, that the municipalities have not the staff to operate under this Clause, and that, before they can get ready to operate, the time would have expired, and the machinery would be in existence just at the time when the powers under the Bill would terminate. Besides, as an hon. Member behind me remarked, it will be a precedent that the Government will hardly be able to resist if hon. Members opposite introduced in another Session a Bill similar to the Local Authorities (Enabling) Bill, because it would be a precedent that the Government themselves instituted.

Sir A. GEDDES: I feel that some answer from the Government is necessary on this Clause. An obvious misapprehension exists with regard to its provisions. I would ask the Committee to see what the Clause proposes to do. Subject to certain conditions, which are to be imposed by the Board of Trade, local authorities may purchase and sell any article or articles of any class to which the Bill applies, and any local authority so authorised shall have all necessary. powers. It takes a very great stretch of imagination to expand that into what is now being pictured, namely, the establishment of general municipal trading. What we are dealing with here is a safety provision. We have only to look at countries not very far away from us, where we see that powers have been taken in some way to limit profits which, in the opinion of the people of those countries, were exorbitant, and where there was, in effect, a strike of the whole of the retailers. At a time like this, when the Government have such examples abroad
before it, I say that, if it did not provide a life-line or way out, it would be guilty of great carelessness. It is to provide something of that kind that this Clause is inserted. It is not, and never has been, intended to be a general provision for unrestricted municipal trading. I suggest that this is really an extension of the principle of the Bill, which makes the whole thing worthless, but the Clause puts us into possession of alternative lines in the event of resistance from retail traders. It is believed that the mere threat of the-exercise of this power will be sufficient to prevent danger arising.

Mr. ACLAND: Will it only last six months?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, only six months.

Lord R. CECIL: The speech of the Minister which has just been made is the most alarming speech that I have heard from him. He thinks it is quite possible that there will be a general strike of retailers as the result of this Bill; that they will be so unfairly treated that they cannot go on, and, as a remedy for this, he will allow the local authorities to go into trade. I am sorry to use strong language, but I have never heard a more insane speech. Really, does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate such a thing? You cannot improvise trade in clothing or food in that way. As a method of strikebreaking against traders it seems fantastic. It is a power that should only be in the hands of the central Government. If the occasion arose, no legislation would really be necessary, and there should be no legislation of the kind in this Bill.

Major GREAME: I do not think that there is any reason to fear the results which it is suggested will ensue if this provision is inserted. In the Committee I put a question to the Food Controller as to whether he would approve a power for local authorities to act in this way? and he replied that he thought such a power desirable. I do not think for a moment that an enormous number of strikes will follow from the temporary power of municipal trading. We have seen at Ilford and other places what can be done in the way of street markets. I submit that that is exactly the kind of thing that will happen elsewhere. The municipality will work directly or indirectly. It is by far the most convenient way of combating excessive prices, and. so far as I have seen, it has been particularly successful.

Mr. INSKIP: I think the Committee is quite safe in taking the Noble Lord who has just spoken quite seriously, and in forming its own. opinion of this proposal. The proposal is to give the Board of Trade themselves very wide powers of dealing with the prevailing prices. I have every sympathy with this object, but these markets should be conducted on a commercial basis; otherwise, it would be perfectly unworkable. The proposal is a sop as the result of the discussion, and the effect would be to break down local conditions so far as people connected with local authorities will be content to act on a commercial basis. Otherwise it means absolutely nothing. The local authority is there, and it would spend the retailers money, but it would have to provide capital. How on earth can anyone ensure that these articles shall be sold more cheaply and that all working expenses shall be met without loss falling upon the community. As we have seen in other cases, the idea is quite illusory. This proposal shows that the Government have no great evidence, and are relying upon other people's judgment. The Government describe this as a life-line. If that was correct, I should have thought the Government would have taken powers in more definite terms. If the Government want it, let them have it, but, for my part, I think it should be rejected, because if the powers are ever used they will be found to be illusory.

Earl WINTERTON: I think that what has happened in another place is worthy of consideration. I do not know what country the Minister referred to, but when there was great trouble in France it was said, "The Tiger is going to settle all this by municipal depots." I think the Government should give their attention to that and find out what has taken place. I see by the papers that it has proved to be a complete failure. Far from stopping profiteering, the telegrams in the papers show that quite serious difficulties arose, and the retailers themselves organised in a strike or something of that kind in order to prevent the consumers from carrying out the Regulations. The result of all this is that the Government attempt to deal with the difficulty by means of municipal and Government trading appears to have broken down.
Therefore I do not think this is a matter which can be lightly entered upon. My hon. Friend has not answered the point
which was put by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitch in (Lord R. Cecil). How can any local authority possibly deal adequately with the situation? How can a local authority start to deal in drapery, in boots, in cabbages, or any other articles, without a trained staff and without some form of organisation? But, as usual, we have in this Clause the words, "The Board of Trade may, if they think fit, authorise the local authorities."
How they are going to do it is not explained in the Clause. How they are going to form an organisation is not explained in the Clause either. This is a Bill for six months, but it will take a year at least to organise, if you are going to do this trading on a proper basis and avoid loss to the ratepayers. I think the Labour party have a legitimate grievance against the Government in this matter, and I am surprised that none of them has risen to call attention to it. They brought in a Bill some time ago in which they showed that their solution for the many serious difficulties was to be found in the local authorities becoming what I may call purveyors of necessities to the country. It was fiercely attacked by the Government, and we heard most excellent arguments—quite different from the arguments we have heard to-night—most admirable arguments from one or other of the two noble relatives who between them control the business of the country. I forget which right hon. relative it was, but it was one of them, got up and castigated the Labour party, and attacked them in every way for the policy of their Bill. What is the difference between their Bill and the policy which is in this Clause? The President of the Board of Trade when he spoke on this Clause a short time ago, said it was to prevent undue profits. That was exactly the intention of the Bill brought in by the Labour party.
I say to all those who support the Government, those who belong to the Coalition party, that they should be very cautious before they give their assent to any Clause of any Bill which is the exact copy of a Bill brought in by the Labour party, or what I prefer to call the Trade Union party. But it is characteristic of the small part which the Labour party play in the proceedings of this House, either by speech or otherwise, that not a single Member has got up to speak on this Amendment. It would be interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman
opposite, who represents the Labour party on the Front Bench, whether he is enthusiastically in favour of this Clause. I have no doubt he would like to see "shall" in the Clause. That would really be carrying out the policy of the Labour party. But I say in all seriousness and earnestness to the Committee that in supporting this Clause as it stands they are supporting one of the most dangerous principles ever brought in by the Government. I do not consider it is a principle which carries out any principle of social reform, but simply the policy of communism. I do not think it is right to suggest, as an hon. Member did just now, that this is a small matter, that the Select Committee were in favour of it, and that it could be lightly entered upon. I venture to hope the Committee will vote against the Clause with the Amendments in it as it stands, and I refuse to believe that it is an integral part of the Bill. I did not vote against Clause 1, especially as now amended, as on the whole I think it was needed in view of the necessities of the time; but that various local authorities should set up this trading on a vast scale, as I consider they will do, is a costly, dangerous and pernicious proposal. Those who have been making Amendments to this. Bill have had very little support in. the Lobby to-night, but on this Amendment, at any rate, I cannot think that a great many hon. Gentlemen whom I see in the House—including the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Essex—with their past professions and beliefs, can possibly support the Clause as it stands, and I appeal to them to follow the lead of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin and vote against the Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I have been more or less opposed to this Bill, but I think, the Bill having gone so far, it is finally necessary that the Government should receive the powers under Clause 3 to meet a temporary emergency, and I am only sorry the Government have modified the Clause by accepting the modifications imposed upon it. The Bill is to continue for six months only, and it is impossible for any municipality to engage in an extensive course of trading during six months. But the value of the Clause is this: If any attempt is to be made in an emergency to protect the community against dire want it may be absolutely necessary for the local authorities to engage in trade, and I extremely regret that the Government have watered down the effect of the
Clause by accepting modifications, because I think the Clause itself is a most valuable one and one that the local authorities should possess in order to meet the needs of the times.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I cannot refrain from just drawing attention to the attitude taken up by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham on this Clause, which is really, if carried out and if we had a President of the Board of Trade who was a Communist, Communism. But let us face the facts. We lay down in this extraordinary Bill that it is wrong for a man to make profits if they are large profits.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not wonder my hon. Friend supports it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That being the case, you cut away the whole moral basis of profit and trade enterprise straight away. We are all faced with grave difficulties in the country; we do not know what is going to happen this next winter. If you say it is wrong for a man to make large profits, everyone who has an income of over £10,000 a year is an immoral ruffian apparently. Therefore, we had better go the whole hog and at once assume control, with eventual nationalisation, of all the means of production and distribution. That would be much more logical. But to acquiesce tamely in this Bill, holding the views that hon. Members opposite do, and not support the hon. Member for Horsham and myself when we do divide, now, when the communal principle is markedly and honestly brought in, is altogether illogical and un-English.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The scath of criticisms which have come from various Members is that the unworkableness of the Clause must be largely due to local working of municipalities and local authorities. There have been several instances when the possibility of power like this would have been of valuable use. I will give one instance which occurred quite recently. The public was asked by the Coal Controller to lay in stocks of coal during the summer months. It is quite impossible for people of small means to lay in tons at a time—they may buy in pounds and hundredweights—and it was suggested that the local gasworks should lay in stocks for the poorer inhabitants, accumulate it and then retail it to those who were unable to buy. We were advised that it
would be impossible for municipalities to start trading in a national emergency such as the coal shortage. If it did nothing else this Clause would provide a means whereby the municipality could lay in stocks of coal and retail it later on to those who were unable to make provision for themselves. It would have been a safeguard when in times past a coal strike was imminent. Local authorities have been prevented by the absence of such powers as are foreshadowed in this Clause. That is only one small case, but it shows that it would not be unworkable. The Government will insist on this Clause, and I insist it is not so unworkable as it is suggested.

Mr. REMER: I rise to support my Noble Friend in his opposition to this Clause. I think it is inconsistent of the Government in view of the fact that they opposed the Labour party two months ago tooth and nail, and now they come forward and propose practically the same thing in one of their own Bills. I resent it mainly because that Bill was taken on a Friday afternoon—it was proposed by the hon. Member for Govan and the Member for Leigh—and I was persuaded to come down to the House and vote against it because they told me it was a Bill to establish Bolshevism in this country. I had it on the authority of one of the Whips. [Cries of "Name."] It was the hon. Member for Preston. That was the statement made by the Government about that Bill. and if the Government had thoughts of that kind two months ago, it is inconsistent to alter it now.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: An hon. Member opposite was a little concerned about the small number of Members who support us. I am not concerned about that. We want to divide on a principle, and a principle is a great thing after all. It does not matter how many people support it or how many shirk it because they are afraid they will be unable to justify themselves to their constituents. Here we are faced with the question, "Are you going to give municipalities the right to engage in trade to the detriment of the shopkeepers." That is the whole principle here. This Clause gives the Board of Trade a free hand to give municipalities the right to trade, and it is a matter which I suggest we ought to divide upon and take the opinion of the House. It is too big a principle to give
away in this underhand fashion to the Board of Trade to exercise it when it thinks fit without imposing any conditions.

Mr. ACLAND: Before we divide, I would like to say we have followed this principle in the Land Settlement Act. I think Clause 18 gives all these municipalities power to trade. The House accepted that, and if it is accepted in that important piece of legislation I do not think the House should oppose it when it is proposed to give equal powers here.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The Noble Lord opposite is opposed to this, on the ground of past opinion. I think we might be led to refer to something that has been in operation in the town of Ilford. This principle of the municipal trader has already been used as a means of combating high prices on provisions. I dare say that municipality has been acting legally. I do not know, but I should imagine it would be somewhat difficult to justify what they have done. They have established booths in the market-place for the supply of provisions for the wants of the people locally. That is proved by actual practice to be a proper measure in special circumstances, and it is in a proper measure of succour that people like myself, opposed to Socialism and Communism, would support this Clause. I do not intend to supoprt this Clause on general grounds, but on the ground of immediate necessity in regard to those necessities of life, and also because the provision is for a short period of six months as experimental, and because municipal trading is limited to the articles that arc referred to in the Schedule—[Cries of "What Schedule!"]—at the end of the Bill, and are limited to the immediate necessaries of life.

Lord R. CECIL: I am wholly unconvinced by the argument that municipal trading is desirable in this way. I am far from saying that something could not be said for it if we were properly debating it and putting in safeguards. But I did not rise to say anything further on that, but to express my own hope that we shall not divide upon it, and for this reason: My hon. Friend said he liked dividing on principles. I have from time to time divided on principles, on a furious topic, and with no particular object, and a certain pleasure you feel in walking through the Lobby, but it does no particular good. Anyone with Parliamentary
experience knows that at this period of the year and this time of the night the Government is all-powerful.

Mr. STEVENS: I am hardly likely to be accused of being afraid to back my own opinions, but under the circumstances I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Information to he Treated as Confidential.)

Information and documents given or produced to the Board of Trade or to a committee or tribunal under this Act by a trader shall be treated as confidential, except in cases where the trader otherwise agrees, and in cases where legal proceedings are taken, for the purpose of such proceedings:

Provided that nothing herein shall be taken as preventing the Board or any committee or tribunal from publishing their findings and decisions.

Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, at the beginning, to insert the words
The proceedings before the Board of Trade or any committee or tribunal under this Act shall, unless in special cases the Board of Trade otherwise direct, be held in public where such proceedings are founded on a complaint as aforesaid.
That provides for the publicity for which we undertook to make provision in the case of hearings held originally as the outcome of complaints.

Mr. G. THORNE: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for carrying out the promise he made this afternoon. He will understand that he has not gone the whole length that I should desire, but I am very glad that he has gone as far as ho has

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

After the word "documents" ["Information and documents given or produced"], insert the words "required to be."

Leave out the words "committee or tribunal," and insert instead thereof the words "the experts appointed."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, after the word "trader"["under this Act by a trader"], to insert the words "or manufacturer or trade combination."

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can I have an explanation of the objection to those words?

Amendment made: Leave out the word "trader" ["where the trader otherwise agrees"], insert instead thereof the words "person giving or producing the same."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Consultation with Food Controller.)

The powers of the Board of Trade under this Act shall, in relation to articles of food to which this Act applies, be exercised jointly or in agreement with the Food Controller.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir F. Lowe), I beg to move, after the word "food" to insert the words "or drink."
I do not think this needs any explanation, especially at this hour.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, also on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, to leave out the words "jointly or in agreement with," and to insert instead thereof the word "by."

Earl WINTERTON: I should like the Government to say something about this Amendment. We have just agreed to an Amendment which I understood the Government opposed. Are they going to support this one?

Lord R. CECIL: This Amendment will not do at all. It is evident that you cannot suddenly put in the Food Controller as a person exercising the powers of this Act. You must leave it to the Board of Trade to exercise the powers, very likely in agreement with the Food Controller

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think I need add anything to the explanation given by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchiu He has put the point exactly.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: beg to move, to leave out the words "or in agreement."
I think this Amendment will be rather clearer. Its effect, of course, is that the control of food and drink shall be exercised jointly with the Food Controller. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. ACLAND: Have we not, in negativing the previous Amendment, agreed that these words shall stand part of the Clause?

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Earl WINTERTON: I should like to ask whether the Government are really in favour of this Clause. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull moved an Amendment to include drink as well as food, and the Government never said whether they were in favour of it or not. Are they in favour of the powers of the Board of Trade under this Act in regard to articles of food and drink being exercised jointly or in agreement with the Food Controller? I think we ought to know what is the Government policy on this matter.

Sir A. GEDDES: As the Noble Lord wishes to know what is the policy of the Government, the real answer is that it does not matter in this case whether the word "drink" appears or not. If the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull cares to have the word "drink" inserted, the Government have no objection, and so we accepted it.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Expenses.)

(1).The expenses of any local committees required to be established by local authorities under this Act shall be defrayed by the local authorities out of such fund or rate, and in such manner, as may be directed by the Board of Trade; and any expenses of the Board of Trade under this Act shall, subject to the approval of the Treasury, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(2) Such expenses may in either case include such payment to the chairmen and members of committees and tribunals, in respect of their travelling expenses and loss of time, as appears to the Board reasonable and is approved by the Treasury.

(3) Any fines imposed at the instance of a local committee under this Act shall be applied in aid of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of the committee are required to be paid under this Act, and any other fines imposed under this Act shall be paid into the Exchequer.

Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, to leave out the words

"The expenses of any local committees required to be established by local authorities under this Act shall be defrayed by the local authorities out of such fund or rate, and in such manner, as may be directed by the Board of Trade; and."

5.0 A.M.

I ask the Government whether we can have any explanation of the words, which I propose to leave out, dealing with the expenses of any local Commit tees required to be established by local authorities under this Act? Surely it is not intended to cast the expenses of these committees upon the local ratepapeyrs! We want to be sure that the cost comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Sir A. GEDDES: The intention of the Government is quite clearly expressed. It is that the local authorities are to finance the local committees that they set up. These words are right and proper, and their object is in the interests of economy.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not a very unusual provision to make the Board of Trade give directions to the local authorities?

Mr. NEAL: I hope this Amendment will be pressed. This Clause seems to have no value. First it puts the expenses on the local authorities, and, secondly, the rates are to be reimbursed out of the fines inflicted under the Act. That will give the local tribunals an interest in the results of the prosecutions.

Mr. THORNE: I hope the Government will give this matter more consideration. I do not think the local authorities will welcome these committees. Their objections will be stronger if they have to provide the expenses out of the rates. The words are wrong, in view of an Amendment which has been already accepted. The word "required" should be "authorised." I think it is not right to put this burden on the local authorities. If this work is to be done in the national interests the nation should pay for it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 45.

Division No. 104.]
AYES.
[5.5 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bridgeman, William Clive


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Briggs, Harold


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barnston, Major Harry
Britton, G. B.


Atkey, A. R.
Beck, Arthur Cecil
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)


Baird, John Lawrence
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)


Baldwin, Stanley
Blades, Sir George R.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col A. L. H.


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Campion, Colonel w. R.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Remer, J. B.


Carr, W. T.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Inskip, T. W. H.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Clough, R.
Jameson, Major J. G.
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Jodrell, N. P.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Seddon, J. A.


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Kidd, James
Simm, Col. M. T.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
King, Commander Douglas
Sprot, colonel Sir Alexander


Doyle, N. Grattan
Knights, Captain H.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Sugden, W. H.


Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sutherland, Sir William


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)


Ferestier-Walker, L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Mitchell, William Lane
Townley, Maximilan G.


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Tryon, Major George Clement


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Ste E. (Cambridge)
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Vickers, D.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nall, Major Joseph
Weston, Colonel John W.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. (Exeter)
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Parker, James
Williams, Lt-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
woolcock, W. J. U.


Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Peel, Lt.-Col. ft. F. (Woodbridge)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hailwood, A.
Pratt, John William
Younger, Sir George


Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Pulley, Charles Thornton



Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Purchase, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Col.


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordan
Raeburn, Sir William
Sanders and Mr. Dudley Ward. Sanders and 


Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Glyn, Major R.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Grundy, T. W.
Sexton, James


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Hirst, G. H.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Blair, Major Reginald
Holmes, J. S.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Johnstone, J.
Stevens, Marshall


Briant, F.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Bromfield, W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cape, Tom
Kiley, James Daniel
Wallace, J.


Casey, T. W.
Lunn, William
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Newbould, A. E.
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Entwistle, Major C. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Perring, William George
Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Neal,

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["under this Act"], insert the words "to an amount not exceeding £75,000."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Ealri WINTERTON: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I do not see why it is not possible to lay down exactly what shall be paid to the chairman of a committee or a tribunal. The Sub-clause as it stands is "Such expenses," etc., … "in respect of their travelling expenses and loss of time, as appears to the Board reasonable and is approved by the Treasury." I confess I do not quite understand what that means. How can you make a payment in respect of a chairman or a member of a tribunal in respect of his loss of time? In my opinion what the Bill should authorise is that the chairman and the members of the committee should receive their bare travel-
ling expenses. I think it is a dangerous provision to put in "loss of time, as appears to the Board reasonable and is approved by the Treasury." It is. another instance of leaving the widest powers to the Board.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The next Amendment deals exactly with that point.

Earl WINTERTON: I think it would before the convenience of the Committee to ask the Government, on the Question to leave out Sub-section (2), exactly what they mean. I beg to move—

Sir G. HEWART: I understand the question is, What do these words mean? They mean precisely what they say, and I should have thought they said it quite plainly. No expenses are to be allowed except travelling expenses and expenses of loss of time, and these expenses are to
be approved by the Board of Trade and the Treasury. I should have thought that was sufficiently plain.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: On what basis is loss of time to be assessed?

Earl WINTERTON: I apologise to the Committee for having put my point so badly, but I do not think it is a frivolous point. On what principle is the loss of time to be assessed? I maintain that it should be laid down that these committees should receive payment for their travelling expenses, and if you wish to put in for their loss of time also it must be arranged on a proper basis. How are you going to assess the amount of compensation payable to a brewer, to a solicitor's clerk, and a baker for their loss of time? The Clause is absurd as it stands. Are you going to do it on the principle of "time and line," of which the Government is so fond, or what? Cannot we have an answer?

The CHAIRMAN: It comes in the next Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "and loss of time."
The Amendment needs very little explanation. I see no reason why these tribunals should be subsidised and encouraged to sit day after day drawing what they like to put in for loss of time. It will encourage them to make work, and you will get little idle people on these tribunals for their own ends. You may get that in some cases. I think travelling expenses are quite sufficient. There are plenty of people in this country with a sufficient sense of public duty to do this work, and I think we shall be justified in leaving this out.

Sir A. GEDDES: This seems to me to be really a very extraordinary Amendment to be made by the hon. Member for Hull. The reason for paying for loss of time is a, good reason, and I imagined that it was known to every single Member of the Committee. If you are going to get a committee or a tribunal that is really representative of all sections and classes of the community you have got to remember that some of these people will be wage earners with no margin, and the more experience. I have had, during this War especially, the more I have seen how
extraordinarily valuable the service of such men is on these tribunals. But they cannot sit there, even at the best of times, without some compensation for loss of wages. It is no good putting down in an Act of Parliament that a man is to be paid for loss of wages automatically for every hour that he sits on the tribunals. I could imagine, then, some very long sittings. But if you get a. body responsible for seeing that the payment is a fair and reasonable one, and that that Department is itself under the close supervision of the Treasury as watch-dog, it seems to me you have got the best possible arrangement for dealing with expenses of this sort. But if you have a Government Department actually responsible for seeing that payment is fair and reasonable, and that Department is itself—as the House is never tired of insisting—under the close supervision of the Treasury, it seems to me you have the best possible arrangement for dealing with a question of this sort.

Mr. LUNN: I can quite understand an Amendment being moved, but an Amendment of this kind is pure obstruction, and is not going to assist in the best tribunals being appointed. If Members who move it had any knowledge of local public life I do not suppose they would move it. I was twenty-five years in local public life and I know what it is. It is important to the community that you should have the-best men and women in this country, irrespective of the class to which they belong. You pay for loss of time on one or two committees appointed during the War. You pay Is. an hour, which is not very much, and the Is. an horn is not for the time from leaving home, but the time they are there. It had been valuable to hundreds of co-operative members who have gone into this local public work with the simple idea of doing the best for the community, and I hope this Amendment will be defeated. I would like to see the amount increased. I do not say it may pay everybody. I do not say everybody claims it, but it ought to be given to those who needed it.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I gather that the intention of the Government is that everyone who is a member of the committee is to receive payment for the loss of time. I think that ought to be "any loss of remunerative time." No one would grudge a woman who lost wages for loss of time, but there will be persons who will attend without any pecuniary loss at all, and if
provision is to be made to pay them, I think it is a mistake. I think the object of the Sub-section is right, to make provision for those who are going to be penalised by the loss of wages, and that these wages should be made up, but any other member of the committee who received payment I wish the Committee would guard against that and that the Government would put in the word "remunerative" before "time."

Major E. WOOD: I think the case made by the President of the Board of Trade and the Member for Rothwell is unanswerable, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. It is not a new principle, and is thoroughly well understood.

Amendment negatived

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "shall be applied in aid of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of the committee are required to be paid under this Act."
I do so because I think it is an inequitable business if this House passes a Clause which in its present form would permit the local committee to draw expenditure from the life of their victims. Checking the profiteer is to me a national question and the expenses of local committees should, as in the case of the local food committees and the military tribunals, be paid out of the fund. It is a monstrous proposition that you should set up 1,600 local committees and give them power to impose fines which could be applied to the payment of travelling expenses and loss of time of people on the tribunal. A tribunal is going to haul a trader before the Police Court. He is going to be fined and they are going to recover the fine and apply it to defraying expenses and loss of time. How are you going to recover from the Police Court?

Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend's question is evidently founded on the idea of something new and revolutionary—that the fine should go in relief of expenses. That is a fact at present. If fines are recovered they go in relief of local rates, and is it really suggested, first, that unnecessary prosecutions will be instituted, and secondly, that by some mysterious process improper convictions will be secured because the fine obtained will come into these funds? An astonishing suggestion! Does not the hon. Gentleman see what it involves? It supposes that the committee
is going to institute prosecutions in order that they may, out of the proceeds of the fine, recoup themselves. And he supposes that these committees by some mysterious means are to suborn the magistrates to give improper convictions to receive the proceeds of the fine.

Mr. KIDD: The learned Attorney-General is not quite clear. Any fine imposed by the local committee under this Act, I understand the President of the Board of Trade to say that a fine imposed in a Summary Court of Jurisdiction in a prosecution at the instance of the committee, but that is different from what is stated. The correct interpretation of the Clause is, I think, that fines are imposed by the local committee.

Sir G. HEWART: If my hon. Friend will be so good as to look at the Act the fine imposed at instance of the local committee can only mean a fine imposed by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in a prosecution instituted by the local committee.

Mr. KIDD: I do not doubt what the Bill provides earlier. I am simply giving the obvious construction of the Section as it stands. If the Attorney-General is right, I submit that the words should be "any fines imposed in a prosecution at the instance of a local committee."

Mr. ACLAND: I think the argument used by the Attorney-General is quite correct, but I am not quite certain that he is right. If these fines only go to pay the expenses of the committee I do not think there is any risk that the committee will act unreasonably; but some of these fines may be quite big. What will happen if the fines recovered exceed the expenses of the committee under the Act? Will they be devoted to the local rates?

Sir G. HEWART: Yes.

Mr. ACLAND: Then at any rate you will have the risk there. Sometimes local authorities are very active, for instance, in the prosecution of motorists. There are an enormous number of such cases instituted, not merely for the safety of the public, but in order to get the fines to put towards the rates. Surely it ought to be provided that there shall be no question of making profits for the rates out of these fines. I think it is perfectly reasonable that they should go to meet expenses, but
I do not think any sort of temptation should be put in the way of a local authority to pile up the number of cases before the Petty Sessional Bench, in order that the fines may go to save the money of the ratepayers.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part: of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Short Title and Duration.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Profiteering Act, 1919.

(2) This Act shall continue in force for six months and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines.

Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, after the word "Act" ["This Act shall continue in force"], to insert the words "with the exception of the third Section."
I move this Amendment in accordance with the indication I gave a short time ago of my wish to exempt Clause 3 from the six months' limit. I do that with a practical purpose, because the Government have accepted an Amendment to Clause 3 which requires the local authorities to carry on their trading operations on a commercial basis, and I do not see how it is possible to do that within the time-limit of six months.

Sir A. GEDDES: I really do not think my hon. Friend expects any answer from me. He has already heard me say that we have no intention of accepting this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Board of Trade to Order Disposal of Stocks.)

The Board of Trade may by order require any person holding stocks of an article or articles to which this Act applies to dispose of such stocks within a period of four weeks.—[Mr. Holmes.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
It is generally known that in many cases prices have been forced up by merchants holding stocks for a rise. The result has been that an artificial shortage has been created and prices have risen. In order to enable the Board of Trade to deal with cases like that, I suggest that they should have the right to issue such an Order. I also suggest that the same power should also be given to any other Government Department. An extraordinary disclosure
was made yesterday by the Financial Secretary of the War Office that an enormous amount of material, not required by the War Office, was. in the hands of that Department. I suggest that if this material could be put on the market it would bring down the prices of articles of everyday consumption to a far larger extent than all the provisions of this Bill put together. I think the Board of Trade should have the right to call upon the War Office, in respect of any of these goods, to clear their stocks and so reduce prices.

Sir A. GEDDES: I can fully understand the reasons which prompt the moving of this Clause, but I feel that, at the present time at all events, this is a power which the Board of Trade should not possess. It is a very large power, much larger than has been conferred so far in any part of the Bill, and it is a power which could only be exercised after full information has been collected with regard to the whole organisation of the trade at present existing in the country. It would be a very dangerous and difficult power to use—that is to say, in so far as persons outside the circle of the Government offices are concerned. Within that circle, I am in a position to report generally on the arrangements and policy with regard to the disposal of stocks now vested in the Board of Trade, and that policy, whatever it may be, is being carried out by the Department concerned. So far as powers for other Departments are concerned, there will be no real gain.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope this Amendment will be pressed. I think it is most desirable that the Board should have this power to order forced sales in cases in which goods are held up. The "rigging" of markets by "corners" is well known in America, and the practice is spreading to this country. If the Government refuse to accept this Amendment, they blow on their whole Bill.

Mr. STEVENS: I think this Amendment is most dangerous. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dangerous to profiteers!"] No, dangerous to Labour. The probability is that it would cause the holding back of a great many consignments coming forward to this country for disposal here.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 134.

Division No. 105.]
AYES.
[5.40 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.J
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Sexton, James


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander, J. M.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Briant, F.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Bromfield, W.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Tom
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Newbould, A. E.



Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Roberts, F. O. (W, Bromwich)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Griffiths.




NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Perring, William George


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Goddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. c. (Basingstoke)
Pratt, John William


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Purchase, H. G.


Atkey, A. R.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Raeburn, Sir William


Baird, John Lawrence
Glyn, Major R.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.


Baldwin, Stanley
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Remer, J. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hailwood, A.
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Barnston, Major Harry
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Seddon, J. A.


Blades, Sir George R.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Blair, Major Reginald
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Brackenbury, Captain H L.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Inskip, T. W. H.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Briggs, Harold
Jameson, Major J. G.
Simm, Col. M. T.


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Jodrell, N. P.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Johnstone, J.
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Joynson-Hicks. Sir William
Stevens, Marshall


Carr, W. T.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Casey, T. W.
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Sugden, W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kidd, James
Sutherland, Sir William


Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
King, Commander Douglas
Townley, Maximillian G.


Clough, R.
Knights, Captain H.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cockerill, Brig-General G. K.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Vickers, D.


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Wallace, J.


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Lort-Williams, J.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Mitchell, William Lane
Winterton, Major Earl


Doyle, N. Grattan
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Edge, captain William
Nail, Major Joseph
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Heal, Arthur
Young, Sir F.W. (Swindon)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Younger, Sir George


Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Parker, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Capt.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Orders of the Day — PREAMBLE.

Whereas it appears that the price of articles are, to the detriment of the people, being enhanced in some cases by the charging of prices yielding an unreasonable profit to the persons engaged in the production, handling, or distribution thereof:

Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

The CHAIRMAN: I think the Preamble to the Bill wants some improvement.

Sir A. GEDDES: There is an imperfection in the first line. It was due to some
failure of the typewriter or the printing machine, when dropped one letter. I did not know whether or not it was necessary to move that the letter "s" should be restored to make the word "prices" not "price."

Amendment made: Leave out the word "price" ["price of articles"], and insert instead thereof the word "prices."

Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL

Changed to

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BILL.

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no intention of making, and it is very little use making a speech now, but I cannot allow the Motion that these Amendments be now considered, at twelve minutes to six o'clock, to go without a protest. This Bill is one of the important fundamental Bills of the Government policy of reconstruction. It was nineteen days in the Grand Committee, three or four days in the Report stage, and has taken several days in the House of Lords. It is now brought back for us to consider several very important Amendments. There are some of those Amendments with which the Government will propose to disagree, thereby promoting trouble between the two Houses. These Amendments will possibly involve us in a quarrel with the other House. I do not think we ought to be asked to take them at twelve minutes to six in the morning after being up all night sitting to consider another Bill. Many of us are deeply interested in this Bill, and we tried to improve it on the Report stage. I do not intend now to discuss whether the Lords Amendments are an improvement or not. I simply submit my protest to the Government. I know they are here to force this Bill through now, whether or not there is opposition argument of Amendments proposed. They are not going to listen to any opposition or argument. I feel that I would not be discharging my duty if, after the efforts we have made to improve the Bill in previous stages, I were now to allow this Motion to go without a protest and without making my own protest.

Lord R. CECIL: I should like to say, in addition to what the hon. Member has just said, with every word of which I agree, that I hope the other House will take notice of the extremely difficult conditions under which we are considering their Amendments, of great importance, and to which the other House evidently has given considerable thought, and, if the con-
sideration of these Amendments turns out to be somewhat perfunctory, that they would not hesitate to exercise their constitutional rights in the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments accordingly considered.

TITLE—An Act to Establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications and for Purposes Connected Therewith.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words "Ways and Communications," and insert instead thereof the word "Transport."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 1—(Appointment of Minister of Ways and Communications.)

For the purpose of improving the means of, and the facilities for, locomotion and transport, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Ways and Communications (hereinafter referred to as the Minister), who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words "Ways and Communications," and insert instead thereof the word "Transport."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Powers and Duties.)

(3) In connection with the transfer of powers and duties to the Minister or the Admiralty by or under this Act, the provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "or the Admiralty," and insert instead thereof the words "Admiralty or Secretary of State."—Agreed to.

After Sub-section (3), insert the following new Sub-section:
(4) There shall be attached to the Ministry a separate Department charged with dealing with road construction, improvement, maintenance and development.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Control Temporarily Railways, etc.)

(1) With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this Section applies, the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect for a period of two years after the passing of this Act, or where as respects any particular provision a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period:

(b) The Minister may, after giving not less than one month's notice in writing, take possession, in the name or on behalf of His Majesty, of the whole or any part of any other railway undertaking or of any light railway or tramway (other than a tramway or a light railway used as a tramway belonging to a local authority),
1553
canal, inland navigation, undertaking, and subject as hereinafter mentioned any harbour, dock or pier undertaking, or of any plant belonging thereto or used thereon (exclusive of privately owned railway wagons), and of any barges, tugs, and other craft owned or held by the undertaking of which possession has been taken:
(c) The directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking of the whole or part of which, or of the plant whereof, possession is retained or taken shall obey the directions of the Minister as to the user thereof, and any directions of the Minister in relation to any undertaking or part or plant thereof of which possession is retained or taken—

(viii) for securing that manufacturing and repairing facilities and auxiliary and ancillary services shall be used, and the purchase and distribution of stores shall be conducted, in such manner as may he most conducive to economy and efficiency:

(d) For enabling any directions given by the Minister under Sub section (c) of this Section as to alterations, and improvements and additions to be carried into effect the Minister may, by Order, authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire any land (including easements) and to construct any works, and the Order may incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and may incorporate or apply any of the provisions of any enactment relating to the construction, maintenance, or working of railways, light railways, tramways, canals, harbours, docks, and piers, and any such Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to empower the Minister to authorise the acquisition, otherwise than by agreement, of any land belonging to the owners of another undertaking to which this Section applies, or of a local authority, or of a harbour dock or pier undertaking, but the Minister may authorise the acquisition of an easement or right of using such land for the purposes of any works the construction of which he may authorise under this Section:

(e) In the case of any undertaking of which possession is retained or taken by the Minister as aforesaid any rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges directed by the Minister shall be deemed to be reasonable, and may, notwithstanding any agreement or statutory provisions limiting the amount of such charges or increases therein, but without prejudice to claims or complaints in respect of undue preference under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 to 1913, be charged in respect of any undertaking during the period for which the Minister retains possession of such undertaking and for a further period of eighteen months
after the expiration of the said period, or until fresh provision shall be made by Parliament with regard to the amount of any such rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges, whichever shall first happen.

(3)—(a) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interest affected by any directions as to rates, fares, tolls, dues, and other charges or special services, a committee shall be appointed consisting of five persons, one being a person of experience in the law (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Lord Chancellor, two being representatives of the trading interest nominated by the Board of Trade, one being a representative of transportation interests nominated by the Minister, one being a representative of labour interests nominated by the Minister of Labour, together with, if deemed advisable, one additional member who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him.

(b) Before directing any revision of any rates, fares, tolls, dues, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister shall refer the matter to the committee for their advice, and they shall report thereon to him, and where such revision is for the purpose of an increase in the net revenue of any undertakings which the Minister determines to be necessary, the committee shall also advise as to the best methods of obtaining such increase from the different classes of traffic, having due regard to existing contracts and the fairness and adequacy of the methods proposed to be adopted.

(c) The committee, before reporting or advising on any matters referred to them under this Section, shall, unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so, give such public notice as they think best adapted for informing persons affected of the date when and the place where they will inquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the committee, and apply to be heard at such inquiry, and, if the committee in their discretion think fit, the whole or any part or the proceedings at such inquiry may be open to the public:

Provided that, for the purpose of this provision, any city, borough, county, or district council shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or any persons represented by them may be affected by any proposed revision as aforesaid.M

(d) The committee shall hear such witnesses and call for such documents and accounts as they think fit, and shall have power to take evidence on oath, and for that purpose any member of the committee may administer oaths.

(e) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any of the members of the committee such salaries or other remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

(f) For the purposes of this Section, special services means the services mentioned in Section five of the Schedule to the Orders relating to railway rates and charges, and in the corresponding Sections of the Schedules to the Orders relating to canal tolls, rates and charges confirmed by various Acts passed in the years eighteen hundred and ninety-one to eighteen hundred and ninety-four.

(4) Section twenty of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916 (which relates to the establishment of new routes for omnibuses). shall continue in force until the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if—

(a)the following provision was substituted for Sub-section (2) of the Section (that is to say):

(2) Except as provided in Sub-section (4) this Section shall not be deemed to detract from any existing powers of highway authorities in regard to omnibuses; and

(i)the following Sub-section was added to the Section (that is to say):

(4) Where, upon application for a licence to ply for hire with an omnibus, the licensing authority either refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence subject to conditions, in either case the applicant shall have a right of appeal to the Minister of Ways and Communications from the decision of the licensing authority, and the Minister shall have power to make such Order thereon as he may think fit, and such Order shall be binding upon the licensing authority.

(6) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to exempt from any rate any undertaking to which this Section applies.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1, b), leave out the words "one month's," and insert instead thereof the words "three months."

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." I should propose to add at the end of paragraph (6) of Subsection (1) the words
Provided that such notice as aforesaid shall not, in the event of the matter being referred to an advisory committee as hereinafter provided, be given until the Committee has reported.
The effect of that will be that there will be at least one month's clear notice to any undertaking after all inquiry has been made. As the Amendment stands, as it was sent down from the other House, it would mean that three months might elapse and very considerable delay would take place, whereas if all inquiries are made and then there is a clear month, that will be amply sufficient to give every protection to the undertaking.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the word "other" ["any other railway undertaking"], and insert instead thereof the word "statutory."—Agreed to.

After the word "tramway" ["any light railway or tramway"], insert the word "undertaking."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "canal" ["canal, inland navigation"], and insert instead thereof the words "or of any canal or."—Agreed to.

After the word "mentioned" ["as hereinafter mentioned"], insert the word "of."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "thereto" ["any plant belonging thereto"], and insert instead thereof the words "to any. such undertaking as aforesaid."—Agreed to.

Amendment made in lieu of Lords Amendment disagreed with:

At end of paragraph (b) add the words
Provided that such notice as aforesaid shall not, in the event of the matter being referred to an advisory committee as hereinafter provided, be given until the committee has reported."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (l, c) leave out the word "any" ["and any directions of the Minister"], and insert instead thereof the word "the."—Agreed to.

At the end of paragraph (vii), insert the words
Nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorising the Minister to compel the owners of any such undertaking either to incur capital expenditure or to draw upon their reserve funds for new works or capital improvements to an extent which would seriously interfere with their finances, it being the intention that the financing of the undertakings from a capital point of view shall remain as far as possible with the owners.

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1, d) leave out the words"—under Sub-section (c) of this Section," and insert instead thereof the words "under the last foregoing paragraph."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1, d)s leave out the word "including" ["including easements"], and insert instead thereof the word "or."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1, e)s leave out the words "but without prejudice to claims or complaints in respect of undue preference under the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 to 1913."—Agreed to.

Insert the following new paragraph:
(f) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the rights of a consignor or consignee of goods or minerals, any trader or class of traders, or any port or harbour authority or dock company to complain to the Railway and Canal Commission under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts in respect of undue preference or undue disadvantage or allowances or rebates in relation to the provision of station accommodation or terminal
services shall not be deemed to be affected, and it shall be no answer to any such complaint that the railway company in respect of which the complaint is made was acting under the directions of the Minister.
—Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section (3).—Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section (4).—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (6), leave out the word "rate," and insert instead thereof the words "local rate or assessment."—Agreed to.

At end, add, as a new Sub-section,
(5) For the purposes of this Act possession so taken or retained us aforesaid shall confer on the Minister such rights of control and direction as may be necessary for the exercise of his powers under this Act, but shall not confer on him any rights of ownership.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Saving for Statutory Horbour, Dock and Pier Authorities.)

Nothing in Section three of this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament, including the Manchester Ship Canal, but not including any harbour, dock or pier forming part of a railway undertaking, or to the owners of any such undertaking without the consent of such owners, but if at any time during the two years after the passing of this Act the Minister shall consider that it is desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation at the harbour, or at any dock or pier of the owners, should be improved or extended, or that the method of working should be altered, the Minister may by Order, for the purposes aforesaid, require the owners to execute or do, within a reasonable time, such improvement or extension or alteration in the, method of working as the Order may prescribe, and may for that purpose confer on the owners any such powers of acquiring land or easements or constructing works as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of that Section:

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the words
Nothing in Section three of this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament, including the Manchester Ship Canal, but not including any harbour, dock or pier forming part of a railway undertaking,
and insert instead thereof the words
except where any harbour, dock or pier forms part of a railway undertaking, nothing in Section three of this Act shall apply to any harbour, dock or pier undertaking established by Act of Parliament, including the Manchester Ship Canal.
—Agreed to.

After the word "purpose" ["and may for that purpose"], insert the words "by order."—Agreed to.

After the word "Section" ["Sub-section (1) of that Section"], insert the words
"and the provisions of this Act relating to Orders made under that paragraph shall apply to Orders conferring such powers as aforesaid."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power to Retain Lands, etc.)

Where in pursuance of any direction given by the Minister under this Act the owners of any undertaking shall acquire any lands or easement, or construct any works, or carry out any alteration or improvement of or addition to their undertaking the owners may, after the expiration of the period of possession, continue to hold and use such lands or easement and maintain and use such work, alteration, improvement, or addition for the purposes of their undertaking, and such land, work, alteration, improvement, and addition shall for all purposes be deemed to form part of their undertaking.

Lords Amendment: After the word "land" ["and such land, work"], insert, the word "easement."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions as to Officers and Servants.)

(1) The following provisions shall apply with respect to officers or servants of any undertaking of which, or of any part, or plant of which possession has been retained or taken under this Act (all of which officers and servants are in this Act hereinafter referred to as "existing officers and servants"):

(iii) Where an existing officer or servant has been transferred either temporarily or permanently to the Minister under this Section then so long as the Minister remains in possession of that undertaking that officer or servant may remain a full member of any pension or superannuation fund established in connection with the undertaking with all the rights to which he would be entitled had he continued in the service of the owners of the undertaking, and any contributions payable under the rules of the pension or superannuation fund or by customary practice by the owners of the undertaking may be paid by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament, and he shall be entitled to receive such reasonable allowances for temporary disturbance as the Minister with the consent of the Treasury may determine (including direct pecuniary loss sustained in consequence of the transfer):

(v) The Minister may direct that the office or situation of any existing officer or servant which he deems unnecessary shall be abolished:

(vii) Every such officer or servant who so relinquishes his office or service as afore-said, and every such officer or servant whose services by or in consequence of any such direction are dispensed with on the ground that his services are not required, or for any reason not being on account of any misconduct or incapacity or whose salary, wages, or remuneration are reduced on the ground that his duties have been diminished by or in. consequence of any such direction, or who
otherwise suffers any direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act (including any loss of prospective superannuation or other retiring or death allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice), shall be entitled to be paid by the Minister compensation for such pecuniary loss, to be determined by the Treasury, subject to appeal to such standing arbitrator or board of arbitration as aforesaid, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, relating to compensation to existing officers, and those provisions shall apply accordingly as if they were herein re-enacted with the necessary modifications:

Provided that in the case of any officer or servant who was appointed to his office as a specially qualified person at an ago exceeding that at which public service usually begins, or of any officer or servant who suffers any loss of prospective superannuation or other retiring or death allowances as aforesaid, such addition may be made to the amount of compensation authorised under the said provisions as may seem just, having regard to the particular circumstances of such case.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1, iii), after the word "undertaking" ["possession of that undertaking"], insert the words "or any part or plant thereof."—Agreed to.

At the end of Sub-section (l, v), add the words
Provided that the Minister shall not require the abolition of any such office which will, in the opinion of the owners of the undertaking, be essential to them in their conduct of the undertaking at the end of the period of possession.
—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment: At end of Subsection (1), add the words
Provided further that the expression in Subsection (1) of Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888,' The Acts and Rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service' shall mean the Acts and Rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment proposes a charge and is a privilege Amendment. The effect of it is to keep the terms of compensation which are given by the Act of 1888, which are considerably better terms than those given by the rules under that Act. The result would be to impose a charge, and, therefore, this is a privilege Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move that this House do waive its privilege, and accept the Clause as amended.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Claims against and by the Minister in Respect of Exercise of Powers.)

(1) Where at the end of the period of possession by the Government of any undertaking or of any part or plant of an undertaking the value of the undertaking on a revenue-earning basis has been reduced or enhanced as compared with the value at the commencement of such period, or where during that period the income thereof has been reduced or enhanced, after taking into account in either case—

(a) any capital expenditure by the owners of the undertaking on any works brought into use in the interval; and
(b) where the undertaking has not before possession was taken by the Government paid a dividend out of revenue of four percent. on its ordinary capital the natural growth of traffic on the undertaking,"
then, if and so far as such reduction or enhancement is due to the exercise by the Minister during that period upon the undertaking in question of the powers under Section three of this Act (including such powers as have been hitherto exercised by the Board of Trade as mentioned in paragraph (1) (a)of that Section) the owners of the undertaking shall, unless such reduction or enhancement is otherwise provided for by the payments mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of that Section, be entitled to be recouped, or liable to pay. the amount by which that value has been so reduced or enhanced, and if any question arises as to such amount or the liability to pay the same, or otherwise with respect to the financial relations between the Minister and any person affected by the exercise by the Minister of any of his powers under the said Section, the question shall be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(6) The Minister shall indemnify, and keep indemnified, the owners of any undertaking of which or of any part of which, or of any plant of which possession has been retained or taken against all actions, claims, and demands made in respect of loss or injury alleged to be caused by the carrying out of any directions given by the Minister under Section three of this Act:

Provided that where the loss or injury is due to the breach of any contractual obligation the Minister shall not be liable under this provision unless before carrying out the directions the owners of the undertaking have given written notice to the Minister of the existence of the obligation.

Lords Amendments:

6.0 A.M

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words, "(b) where the undertaking has not before possession was taken by the Government paid a dividend out of revenue of four per cent. on its ordinary capital."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "payments" ["provided for by the payments"], and insert instead thereof the word "compensation."—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (b), after the word "taken" ["has been retained or taken''], insert the words "and the owners of any harbour, dock, or pier undertaking."

Mr. SPEAKER: This also, I think, is a privilege Amendment, because it brings within its scope a fresh class for indemnification.

Mr. SHORTT: We do not dispute it. We simply do not move that we waive the privilege.

Lord R. CECIL: Then I beg to move that we waive our privilege, in order to give the Government an opportunity of explaining.

Mr. SPEAKER: I put the Question, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," and the Noble Lord can vote against it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. If the Amendment made by the Lords infringes the privilege, is it consistent with the privileges of this House that you, Mr. Speaker, should put the Motion? Surely the Motion should go, unless there; is a Motion to waive the privilege?

Mr. SPEAKER: The proper course is that which has been taken in another case. If the House wishes to waive privilege it can move to do so, or if the Government do not wish to do so, they need not move.

Mr. SHORTT: If it is desired, I will waive privilege.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.

Lords Amendment: After the word "Act" ["under Section three of this Act"], insert the words "or as the case may be any requirements contained in any Order made by the Minister under Section four of this Act."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power to Establish Transport Services.)

(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister to establish and work transport services by land or water, and to acquire either by agreement or compulsorily such land or casements or rights in or over land, to construct such works, and to do
all such other things as may be necessary for the purpose:

Provided that—

(i) no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete it has been approved by the Treasury;
(ii) if such estimate as in the preceding paragraph provided in connection with the establishment of any such service is likely to involve a total capital expenditure exceeding half a million pounds, or the acquisition of land compulsorily, or the breaking up of any roads, the Minister shall not exercise his powers unless authorised to do so by Order in Council a draft whereof has-been approved by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament, and the Order may incorporate the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvements Funds Act, 1909, or any other enactment, and the Order may also incorporate or apply any enactments relating to the construction and maintenance of the works in question;

(2) The expenses of working services established by the Minister under this Section, shall be paid out of the revenues derived there from, and the Minister shall keep such accounts of the receipts from and expenditure on the undertakings and in such form. and those accounts shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may prescribe.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), after the words "and" ["to establish and work"], insert the words" either by himself or through any other person to."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "or rights in or over land."—Agreed to.

In paragraph (i), leave out the word "Ministry" ["shall be established by the Ministry"], and insert instead thereof the word "Minister."—Agreed to.

After the word "it" ["required to complete it"], insert the words "accompanied by the details of the scheme for the establishment of the service."—Agreed to.

In paragraph (ii), leave out the words "if such estimate as in the preceding paragraph provided in connection with the establishment of," and insert instead thereof the words "in his case."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "is likely to involve a total capital expenditure exceeding half a million pounds, or the acquisition of land compulsorily," and insert instead thereof the words
such estimate as aforesaid exceeds half million pounds, or in the establishment of any
such service involves the acquisition of land or easements compulsorily.
—Agreed to.

After the word "powers" ["shall not exercise his powers"], insert the words "of establishing the service."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "The expenses of working services established by the Minister under this Section," and insert instead thereof the words
The Minister or other person working a service established under this Section may charge such rates, fares, tolls, and charges in connection therewith as may be prescribed by the Minister, subject to reference to the Advisory Committee on Rates hereinafter established, and the expense of working such service.
—Agreed to.

After the word keep ["and the Minister shall keep such accounts"], insert the words "or cause to be kept."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "undertakings" ["expenditure on the undertakings"], and insert instead thereof the word "services."—Agreed to.

Clause 11.—(Appeal as to Bridges.)

An appeal shall lie to the Minister in respect of any restriction upon any traffic passing over or seeking to cross any bridge or culvert, and the Minister shall have power notwithstanding any provision in any other Statute to make such Order as he may think fit concerning the strengthening, standard of maintenance, and maintenance of any bridge or culvert, the traffic using it, or seeking to use it, and apportionment of any expenditure involved.

Lords Amendment:

At the end, insert the words'
but no Order made by the Minister under this Section shall enlarge the pecuniary liability of any railway or canal company or impose any new liability upon any such company.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Sir W.JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I must ask the House to consider this. It inserts a Clause unanimously rejected by the House on the Report stage. The House probably knows there are large numbers of bridges cutting through the highways of the land. Some of these bridges belong to county councils, some of them belong to railway companies, and some to canals. They have been built for ten, twenty, thirty, forty, and some 100 years. Perhaps all know, who have seen these bridges from time to time, that they are insufficient to carry vehicles over a
certain weight. For years back there has been trouble between the authorities, and the difficulty was what must be done to bring them up to the necessary strength to carry roads. One hundred years ago, all roads were made for ordinary cart traffic. When the railways came on they had to build bridges to carry the roads over the railway, and I frankly admit the position of the railway companies under their Act of Parliament. They are only required to keep the bridges up to the extent of the traffic going over them when they were built. The highway authorities on each side of the bridge have improved the road to carry modern traffic, but there are hundreds of cases where the bridges over the roads are not equal to carry modern traffic. There was a case, some few years ago, where one railway company introduced a whole series of bridges passing right across the middle west to the Eastern Counties, which practically stopped the whole road traffic for nearly 100 miles. It was, I think, the Midland and South-Western, or some other, Railway, and proceedings had to be taken. Inquiries were held by the Board of Trade at Worcester, and after a good deal of litigation a compromise was arrived at. These were important, to enable traffic to get through. Board of Trade Bills have been prepared during the past ten years, which have been submitted to county authorities, railway companies, and highway authorities to get hold of agreement so as to enable the proper parties to be charged for the strengthening of the bridges. Railway companies were only required to keep the bridges as they were fifty or sixty years ago, and county authorities say, "We have made the roads. I do not know why we should make the bridges for the railway companies. "After all these years no agreement has been arrived at. I prepared this Clause 11after consultation with many of the road authorities. It is not often that I have provided more powers for the Minister-designate, but, on the Report stage, I ventured to suggest, in Clause 11,that an appeal should lie to the Minister. We wanted to find some kind of authority. He has taken over all the powers of the Board of Trade in connection with railways, and I suggested that an appeal should lie to the Minister in respect of any restriction upon any traffic passing over or seeking to cross any bridge or culvert, and that the Minister should have power, notwithstanding any provision in
any other Statute, to make such Order as ho might think fit concerning the strengthening, standard of maintenance, and maintenance of any bridge or culvert, the traffic using it or seeking to use it, and apportionment of any expenditure involved.
That, I thought, was a fair Clause, which would bind the county authorities, the railway authorities, the canal authorities, or whoever owned those bridges. When I moved this Clause on the Report stage my right hon. Friend the Minister-designate was kindly complaisant. He accepted the Clause on behalf of the Government. The Clause was passed unanimously by this House, and was sent up as part of the Bill. It was of substantial value to the road authorities of this country, and would have done away with needless litigation; and we are trusting the Minister to such a great extent in his Bill that I felt that both parties to these long-standing disputes could not do better than place their case in his hands, for him to say whether such bridges required strengthening, and, if he found that they did, to decide whether the railway company or the county authority should pay, but that, at any rate, the bridge would be repaired. The Bill went to the House of Lords. I was there looking on, and I found a railway director moving this Amendment, and it was seconded by another railway director. It was carried nem. con., and it completely nullifies the provisions of the Clause. If this Amendment is adopted here, you may as well cut out Clause 11. It provides that no pecuniary liability shall be placed upon any railway company at all. In other words, if the Minister is of opinion—they do not object to the appeal to him—that a bridge has to be strengthened to carry the traffic of the present time, he may make an Order upon the road authority or anybody else who is responsible for the bridge, but he may not impose any liability upon the sacrosanct railway companies of this country. I had hoped that, after the Minister-designate had accepted this Clause, and after this House had passed it unanimously, the Government would at least have stood to their guns, and not at this late hour have allowed the railway interests in the other House completely to obliterate the really important part of this Clause. I do not know whether the Government really mean to press their intention, but I sincerely hope they will disagree with this Amendment.
I frankly admit that the Clause docs impose some liability upon railway companies, but it imposes it upon the railway companies only at the same time as upon the county councils, and so forth. We shall never get the bridges repaired if railway companies continue to adopt the non possumus attitude which they have adopted in some places. In some places they have made terms with the county authorities, but in other places they have adopted this non possumus attitude, and it will still go on. Good roads come right up to the edges of the bridge, and yet the bridge will not carry the traffic which the roads will carry, I venture to ask the Minister to give a little attention to this matter, and say that the Amendment moved by the House of Lords is moved practically in favour of the moneyed interest in that House. I have made appeals in this House, and elsewhere, that the roads should not be lightly sacrificed because my right hon. Friend was more interested in railways than in roads. This is the first time we have come in conflict with the railway interest, and my right hon. Friend, by his suggestion this morning, indicates that ho is going to give way on this very first occasion to the railway interest. I ask him even, at this moment, to reconsider the position, and stand by the Clause as he accepted it in this House.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope the House will agree with the Lords. The hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham speaks without any regard for the future of the railways and without realising the tremendous obligation he is proposing to place upon the shareholders. I am informed that this obligation may extend to several millions, and, with enormous charges already imposed upon the railways and the entire uncertainty with regard to their future position, it seems a mischievous thing that such a change at this hour should be made. The Bill as amended in the Standing Committee did not contain this Clause; it did not impose this obligation. The Clause was slipped into the Bill on the Report stage here, I suppose, without its nature being clearly realised.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was on the Paper.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not think my hon. Friend made quite as specific a speech on the subject as he has done tonight. Is it right that a huge obligation
of this kind should be placed upon the railway undertakings of this country? I venture to say that it is not at all right, and I hope that the House will agree with the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 11 insert new Clause A.

(Provisions as to New Routes for Omnibuses.)

Section twenty of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916 (which relates to the establishment of new routes for omnibuses), shall continue in force until the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if—

(a)the following provision was substituted for Sub-section (2) of the Section (that is to say):

(2) Except as provided in Subsection (4) this Section shall not be deemed to detract from any existing powers of highway authorities in regard to omnibuses; and

(b)the following Sub-section was added to the Section (that is to say):

(4) Where, upon application for a licence to ply for hue with an omnibus, the licensing authority either refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence subject to conditions, in either case the applicant shall have a right of appeal to the Minister of Transport from the decision of the licensing authority, and the Minister shall have power to make such Order thereon as he may think fit, and such Order shall be binding upon the licensing authority.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Powers as to Railway Wagons.)

(4) Where the Minister exercises hit powers of purchasing wagons under this Section, or of prohibiting or restricting the use of privately-owned wagons, or of limiting the number of wagons to be so used, the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) The reasonable facilities which every railway company is required to afford under Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as amended or explained by any other Act, shall where the railway wagons of traders of any class have been purchased include the provision of suitable railway wagons for the use of traders of that class:

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act or any decision there under, in determining what sum may be charged under the provisions of any Railway Rates and Charges Order for the detention of wagons at the premises of any trader, regard shall be had to the requirements and reasonable usages of the trade at those premises carried on in connection with which such wagons are used.

(5) Notwithstanding any statutory or other provision to the contrary it shall be lawful for the Minister to make Regulations prohibiting or
restricting the use on railways of privately-owned wagons or restricting the number of wagons to be so used and prescribing the type and capacity thereof:

Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the prohibition of the use on railways of such wagons as comply with Regulations for the time being in force made in pursuance of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or any other enactment in force at the date of the passing of this Act and as are in use, under repair, or in course of construction at that date.

Lords Amendments:

At end of Sub-section (4, a), insert the words
and it shall be the duty of the Minister so to exercise his powers of working or disposing of the wagons purchased by him as to enable the railway companies to fulfil their obligations under this provision as fully as may be. practicable.
—Agreed to.

In paragraph (c), leave out the words "at those premises."—Agreed to.

After the word "on." insert the words "at those premises."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "restricting," and insert instead thereof the word "limiting."—Agreed to.

After "1845," insert the words "the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845"—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Power to Discharge Capital Liabilities by issue of Stock.)

Any capital sum payable under this Act for reduction in the value of an undertaking, or for the purchase of privately-owned railway wagons, or any interest therein, may be discharged in, whole or in part, if the Treasury so direct, by the issue of securities, and the amount of such securities equivalent to such capital sum shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission.

For that purpose the Treasury may create and issue securities, the interest on which shall, in the case of securities issued for the purchase of railway wagons, be charged on the revenues derived from the wagons so acquired, after the payment there out of working expenses, and if and so far as such revenues are insufficient, or wholly in the case of securities issued for discharging such capital sum as aforesaid, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing product! thereof, and which shall bear interest at such rate and shall be subject to such conditions and regulations as to repayment, redemption, or otherwise as the Treasury may direct or prescribe, and the regulations may apply with the necessary modifications any of the enactments relating to local loans stock.

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the words
the interest on which shall, in the case of securities issued for the purchase of railway wagons, be charged on the revenues derived from the wagons so acquired, after the payment there-
out of working expenses, and if and so far as such revenues are insufficient, or wholly in the case of securities issued for discharging such capital sum as aforesaid, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof, and.
—Agreed to.

At end, add the words
the interest on any such securities as aforesaid shall"—
(a)in the case of securities issued for the purchase of railway wagons be charged on the revenues derived from the wagons so acquired after payment there out of working expenses, and, if and so far as such revenues are insufficient, on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof; and
(b)in the case of other securities be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof." 
—Agreed to.

After words last inserted, add,
(2) Where the whole or any part of the purchase money for the interest in railway wagons belonging to a wagon finance company is discharged by the issue to the company of such securities as aforesaid, and the company in consequence of the exercise by the Minister of his powers under this Act of purchasing railway wagons is wound up voluntarily, the liquidator may present to the Court having jurisdiction to wind up the company a scheme for the discharge in whole or in part of the liabilities of the company to the holders of debentures or debenture stock of the company by means of the transfer to them of an amount of the securities so issued to the company, and if the Court sanctions the scheme those liabilities may be discharged accordingly.
For the purpose of this Sub-section wagon finance company means a company whose principal business is the advance of money to colliery companies and other persons for the purpose of the acquisition by them of railway wagons.
—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 14."—(Incorporation of certain Sections.)

Where any order is made by the Minister authorising the owners of any railway undertaking to acquire any land (including easements), and to construct any works, or where any Order in Council authorising the Minister to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of a railway is made and approved as required by this Act, such Order of the Minister or Order in Council, as the case may be, shall incorporate Sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or in Scotland Sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (which relate to the working of mines), subject to any statutory modifications thereof then in force.

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the words "where any Order is," and insert instead thereof the words "an order."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "where any" ["or where any"], and insert instead thereof the word "or."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "is made and approved as required by this Act such Order of the Minister or Order, in Council, as the ease may."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 16."—(Power to make Advances for Certain Purposes.)

(2) For the purpose of advances for the construction, improvement, or maintenance of roads the Minister may, after consultation with the local authorities affected, classify roads in such manner as he thinks fit, and may by agreement with the local authority defray half the salary and establishment charges of the engineer or surveyor to a local authority responsible for the maintenance of such roads, subject to the condition that the appointment, retention, and dismissal of such engineer or surveyor, and the amount of such establishment charges, shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), after the word "the" ["consultation with the local authorities affected"], insert the words "road committee hereinafter referred to and the."—Agreed to.

Clause 17."—(Accounts, Statistics, and Returns.)

For the period of two years after the passing of this Act it shall be the duty of the owners of any railway, light railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, or pier undertaking, and the authority or person liable to maintain any road or bridge, to furnish to the Minister, in such manner and form as he may direct, such accounts, statistics, and returns as he may require for the purpose of his powers and duties under this Act.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the word "road" ["liable to maintain any road or bridge"], and insert instead thereof the words "public highway."—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 19, insert:

CLAUSE B.—(Rates Advisory Committees.)

(1) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by any directions as to rates, fares, tolls, dues, an a other charges or special services, a committee shall be appointed consisting of six persons, one being an impartial person (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Railway and Canal Commission, two being representatives of trading interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, one being a representative of agricultural interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and two being representatives of labour interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress together with, if deemed advisable, one additional member who may at the discretion of the Minister be nominated from time to time by him.

(2) Before directing any revision of any rates, fares, tolls, dues, or other charges, or of any special services, the Minister snail refer the matter to the committee for their advice, and they shall report thereon to him, and where such revision is for the purpose of an increase in the net revenue of any undertakings which the Minister determines to be necessary, the committee shall also advise as to the best methods of obtaining such increase from the different classes of traffic, having due regard to existing contracts and the fairness and adequacy of the methods proposed to be adopted. Before prescribing the limits of rates, tolls, or charges in connection with a new transport service established under Section nine of this Act, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Committee for their advice.

(3) The committee before reporting or advising on any matters referred to them under this Section, shall, unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so, give such public notice as they think best adapted for informing persons affected of the date when and the place where they will inquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the committee, and, unless in their discretion the committee consider it unnecessary, shall be heard at such inquiry, and, if the committee in their discretion think fit, the whole or any part of the proceedings at such inquiry may be open to the public:

Provided that, for the purpose of this provision, the council of any city, borough, burgh, county, or district shall be deemed to be persons affected in any case where such council or any persons represented by them may be affected by any such proposed revision as aforesaid.

(4)The committee shall hear each witnesses and call for such documents and accounts as they think fit, and shall have power to take evidence on oath, and for that purpose any member of the committee may administer oaths.

(5)There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any of the members of the committee such salaries or other remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

(6)For the purposes of this Section, special services means the services mentioned in Section five of the Schedule to the orders relating to railway rates and charges, and in the corresponding Sections of the Schedules to the orders relating to canal tolls, rates and charges confirmed by various Acts passed in the years eighteen hundred and ninety-one to eighteen hundred and ninety-four.

Lords Amendment read a second time.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words
six persons, one being an impartial person (who shall be chairman) nominated by the Railway and Canal Commission, two being representatives of trading interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, one being a representative of agricultural interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and two being representatives of labour interests nominated by the chairman for the time being of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress 
and to insert instead thereof the words
five persons, one being a person experienced in the law (who shall be chairman), nominated by the Lord Chancellor, two being representatives of the trading and agricultural interests, nominated by the Board of Trade, one being a representative of transport interests nominated by the Minister, and one being a representative of the Labour interest nominated by the Minister for Labour.
It is very important, in the view of the Government, that the chairman should be, if possible, a person trained in the law, who, if not a judge, is a person of large legal experience. It is felt that the Lord Chancellor is a better person to nominate such a chairman than would be the Rail-way and Canal Commissioners. There are three different Railway and Canal Commissions, one with a judge who presides in the Court for England, one with a Scottish judge, and there is an Irish judge presiding in Ireland. The Lord Chancellor would nominate a person to preside over this advisory committee representing the whole of the United Kingdom. As to the trading interests, it is better that the Minister should be able to select from all the bodies that are concerned either in the agricultural or trading interests than that he should merely consult with the chairman of the associated chambers of commerce, and the same remark applies to the Central Chamber of Agriculture. So far as the rest are concerned the House agreed unanimously, when the matter was before it, that it would be-better that the Minister for Labour should appoint the Labour representative on the Committee if we want a man who would look after the interests of the consumers. The Trades Union Congress, national as it is in character, does not represent actually all the consumers, or even the whole of the working-class consumers. I therefore ask the House to amend the new Clause and insert the words I have moved.

Lord R. CECIL: I hope the House will not follow the advice of the Government, but will accept the Lords. Amendments as they stand. It is quite obvious that in the conditions in which this discussion must take place we cannot discuss the matter fully, nor will we find it altogether safe or extremely easy to decide. The proposal of the Government as it left this House was that the Advisory Committee should consist entirely of nominees of the Government. The chairman was to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor, and
others by the Minister under this Bill and the Board of Trade, and so on. The result must have been that the President of the Board of Trade would inevitably have selected a person who would be acceptable to the Minister of Ways and Communications, and the same in other cases. The Committee would not be in any sense independent of the chairman or represent outside interests. That would necessarily happen if those persons only were nominated who were agreeable to the Transport Minister. I do not think that is a sound system. If we are to have these advisory committees, a committee should be representative of much more than the departmental view of the Ministry or the Minister. The whole point of it is the desire to bring in outside opinion, which would prevent the extenson of the bureaucratic character of the general scheme of the Bill. That being so, I cannot help thinking that the Lords have made a great improvement in the original scheme. It may be said that the nominating bodies they suggest are not properly selected, but I still think that most of these authorities are well selected for the purpose. The Railway and Canal Commissioners are an extremely important body with great experience of these matters, while the Lord Chancellor has had no particular experience of the kind. It is quite true that the Lords would be well advised not to insist that the chairman should not be a lawyer. I have still sufficient sympathy with my old profession to say that a lawyer usually makes the best chairman. I think it is probable that the chairman would be a lawyer in any case. To go to the chairman of the Associated Chambers of Commerce is, I am sure, the right way to get good work done and there are to be two nominated by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. I confess I do not sec how the Minister expects that hon. Gentlemen opposite would rather not see a representative of Labour chosen, by a Labour organisation than chosen by the Minister for Labour. It seems to me he would be far better chosen by Labour men, and in other cases I do not think that Ministers would be the best persons to nominate representatives of the different interests or to see that they were fairly representative of the different bodies mentioned in the Amendment. It all depends upon what kind of a. committee you want. If it is a committee that will take its orders from the Minister
in charge, and do exactly what it is told, the scheme of the original Bill of the Government was the right one.
If, on the other hand, you want a Committee which is going to bring in some kind of fresh view, some kind of independent attitude, and an independent angle of vision, then it seems to me that such a Committee as is suggested by the Lords is the right Committee, and I venture to hope that this House, even in the very unfortunate circumstances in which we are considering this question, will agree with the Lords and disagree with the Motion.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will consider the possibility even now of a compromise. I do not know that I want to insist on every word of the Lords Amendment, but here the Lords are more democratic than we arc. They really provide for a Committee which shall be representative of interests affected, whereas the right hon. Gentleman's Committee is undoubtedly representative, as my Noble Friend said, of the Departmental view. I may tell the House of what took place in Committee upstairs. This was not my right hon. Friend's Clause; this was our Clause. When we first moved this Clause, my right hon. Friend will remember, it gave rise to the classical expression of the Home Secretary: "This-will knock the bottom out of the Bill." They fought this Clause for two days before they would consent to an alteration of the Bill. We had to adjourn the Committee in order that private negotiations should take place before we could get any kind of Committee at all. They did not like Committees. They did not like anybody who would interfere with the autocracy of my right hon. Friend the Minister. And so, upstairs, we had to be content with the Committee we could get. Now the Lords have taken upon themselves to make a more democratic Committee, and we who wanted a democratic Committee are entitled to avail ourselves of the Lords Amendments and ask the House to reconsider them from the Lords point of view. The House knows that this is a Committee to consider the whole question of railway rates. Under the provisions of the Bill any railway rates at all, in spite of all the Acts of Parliament to the contrary, made by the Minister, are to be binding on all the traders of this country. That is the
Bill as it started. Then we got a Clause in that a Committee should be appointed to whom appeals might lie in regard to alterations of rates made by the Minister. Now, if they want to deal with rates concerning commerce, agriculture and labour I do suggest that the Lords have done the right thing in providing for the appointment of the members of this Committee. The representative of commerce to be appointed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, of agriculture by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and of Labour by the people acquainted with Labour. You would then get a really representative Committee, a Committee which would give my right hon. Friend very great assistance in dealing with these difficult matters and I hope in this case the House will, even if it be modified, insist on some sort of compromise.

Mr. SEXTON: It is refreshing in the midst of all our weariness to find, in the words of a Noble Lord, the House of Lords objecting to excessive bureaucracy. I think we are all thankful to the House of Lords for having made this Motion. On the other hand, I think it is nothing short of base ingratitude for the right hon. Gentleman to refuse to accept this Amendment after the valuable assistance the Labour representatives have given to him to carry this Bill through. I speak as a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. The suggestion is that the trading interests shall nominate members to serve on the committee. But surely the trading interests will nominate them through a representative body, and, if that is so, why are not the organised trades of this country, which represent four and a half millions, to have the same privilege as an organised body of the trading community? I trust the right hon. Gentleman will explain this point, even at this twelfth hour, because we do not want to have to vote against the Bill; but I do think the suggestion of the Lords is, strange to say, the democratic one, and on those grounds I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

The MINISTER (Designate) Of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): The Amendment which the Government proposes to insert in the new Clause of the Lords is, in fact, what was agreed in Committee upstairs after considerable debate, and, although
my right hon. Friend the Baronet who has just spoken claims the Clause, I have some claim to it too. [Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: "We share it."] We share it. More than that, the Amendment we made upstairs was an Amendment agreed to by all parties, Labour taking a very active part in it; and, though I am speaking from recollection, I think I am right in saying there was no Division on it. My hon. Friend who has just spoken made the point that if organised trade was to nominate a member of the committee, organised labour ought to nominate a member too. I agree that there is a great deal in that. But organised trade is not going to nominate a member. Under the Amendment the Board of Trade nominate the trading representative and the Ministry of Labour the Labour representative, and he is not a representative of the workers in transportation, but a representative of the consumers in the country as a whole. That is the composition of the committee. If it were a question of getting workers in transportation on the committee it would be quite another thing. The proposal now is that this committee should be formed by the nomination, independently, by great trade and labour organisations—that, in fact, the members of the committee should come as delegates representing particular interests, to do—what? To perform a Very vital, intricate, and difficult function. For, at any rate, two years during which this Bill provides for the control of transportation undertakings this committee, as far as I can see, will be working the whole of the time and occupied all the time on very difficult and intricate work. There is no legislation, I should imagine, that is more confusing than railway rate legislation, and whatever this committee does it must stop for the future all railway rates legislation, and, I hope, for some of the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has in mind as to the disintegration. That committee is not a committee which can be usefully formed by delegates nominated by specific interests. It is more than an advisory committee. It is a committee which receives, as hon. Members will see, a mandate from the Government so to apportion the increase of railway rates which we all know to be necessary to adjust the balance in railway earnings at the present time, and to so apportion that as to do the least possible harm in the country to trade and the community. It is not an advisory body
to which you simply refer a matter and they meet and talk, each member representative of his own interest, and they say, "Well, this is rather too much," or "That is too much," "That is too much on bacon," or "That is too much on coal." That is not the sort of committee wanted.
Whatever this Committee does, it must build for the future a Railway Rates Legislation Act—I hope from some of the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has in mind. That is the spirit of the Committee that is wanted. This Committee, with functions which this House put upon it, must, in fact, be, although advisory in character, part of the machinery of the Department. If it is not to be so, it is inevitable that a smaller body should be set up, and the functions laid down should be changed if the character of the committee is changed. It would be impossible for a purely advisory body, nominated by outside, independent interests, to undertake the work of this council. I hope, with regard to the peculiar character of this committee, that the House will not take the view that it could be a committee of delegates. That is proposed by the Amendment, that various interests should appoint nominees, who should come with the mandate of those who sent them. That was not the intention upstairs in Grand Committee, and in these circumstances I think it would be in the highest degree disastrous, in the work of this important part of the Department, if the Amendment of the Lords was accepted for the composition of the committee.

Mr. STEVENS: I do appeal to the Members of this House to accept the Amendment as sent down from the Lords. I do not wish to repeat anything that has been said except that it is quite true that we were agreed upstairs, after all the fighting had obtained as much as we could, but would it be believed that the Home Secretary, supported by the Minister-designate, put into you a manuscript Amendment which, if I heard it aright, does not even carry out what was proposed upstairs. Upstairs it was proposed that the traders of this country should have by far the greatest interest in this Bill and should have two representatives appointed by the Board of Trade. I am not quite sure, but I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to say what is the proposal of the Home Secretary?

Mr. SPEAKER: Two being representative of trade and agriculture, nominated by the Board of Trade.

Mr. STEVENS: The House of Lords, very likely, would Eave included a representative of the agricultural interests, in addition to the two representatives of the commerce and trade of the country. That is the Amendment we were dealing with in Committee for nineteen days upstairs. I cannot find words within what I consider Parliamentary language to express what I feel about that. The whole trade of this country is, under the suggestion of the Home Secretary, to be represented by one representative appointed by the Board of Trade, and we are told by the Minister-designate that he is not going to be a representative of trade. He has just told us that they do not propose to put any representatives of trade. They propose to put in a representative of the Ministry, and I do appeal to the House to accept the Amendment of the House of Lords as it comes to us here.

Major E. WOOD: I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether there is really as much proposed in the decision he has come to? A great many Members listened to the explanation of the Home Secretary, and they would also like to hear from the other side of the House. I want to urge one point of view. It could be shown that agricultural interests should be represented on that committee by someone who knows their needs.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I was one of those who laboured upstairs on this Bill, and I would remind the House that there was no Division on the Bill for any advisory committee. That institution of a committee was established by the Standing Committee upstairs for the purpose of modifying the arbitrary deeds of the Minister. That is the whole question between what was constituted by the Committee and what is suggested by the House of Lords.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was appointed solely for giving advice and assistance and for safeguarding any interests affected by the decision.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I think it was intended to do so. The difference between the two forms of committee is that, will you have an advisory committee that will co-operate with the Minister, bringing its
knowledge of the various points for his assistance and guidance, or will you have delegates sent from outside to contend for the various interests of those who send them? That is the essence of the whole question. Let me call the attention of the House to the wording of this proposed Clause B as suggested by the House of Lords. It is provided that there shall be six persons, one an imparital person—let the House follow that clearly—two representatives of trading interests, one representative of agricultural interests, and two representatives of labour interests—that is to say, one impartial person and five representative persons.

Lord R. CECIL: That was in the Bill as it was sent up to the House of Lords.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Not in the same connection. These representatives are to come from outside without the knowledge either of the Minister or of the Government. The Minister is to be responsible for the proper working of this Bill, and the Government of the day is responsible, through the Minister, to Parliament. Are we going to commence the labours of the Ministry of Transport with the assistance of a committee skilled in these various branches, but so nominated and appointed as to start in sympathy and with the object of working together to make the Act and the Ministry a success; or are we going to start with an advisory committee coming from outside for the purpose of representing as delegates the various interests by which they are sent? I would remind the House that this Bill is limited in its existence and operation to two years; but to two years of what? Two years of experiment; two years of provisional working of this organisation and co-ordination of transport. If, in that

short period of two years, you are going to begin by having a small internal Parliament or debating society, with antagonistic interests to be reconciled, and not simply advisory, then you will so handicap the Ministry as not to give them a fair chance, especially having regard to the time limit. For that reason, which I think I have definitely and frankly stated, I support the Amendment of the Home Secretary, because I believe it to be right and I believe it to be the only way of giving the Ministry a fair chance of carrying out its duties within the limited time available under the Bill.

Mr. T. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman wants a committee, not merely including one impartial person, but consisting entirely of impartial persons. I am not quarrelling with the method of appointment that he suggests. I think that the members should be really members of the committee, and not delegates to it. We want them to work to make the Act a success, and as far as we are concerned we will support the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I think this matter is very simple, and it has been placed before the House by the right hon. Gentleman in such a simple manner that we can come to a decision quickly on the very words he has put before us. He states plainly that he wants a Departmental Committee, and I think the question before the House is whether we are to have a Departmental Committee or an independent Committee such as would be set up under the Lords Amendment. I hope the House will adopt the Lords Amendment, and that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Question put, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 130.

Division No. 106.]
AYES.
[6.58 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stevens, Marshall


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Bower man, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Knights, Captain H.



Foxcroft, Captain C.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Raeburn, Sir William
Lord Robert Cecil and Major E. Wood.


Johnstone, J
Rogers, Sir Hallewell



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Beck, Arthur Cecil
Bromfield, W.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Belt, James (Ormskirk)
Brown, Captain O. C. (Hexham)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. c. H. (Devizes)
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)


Atkey, A. R.
Blades, Sir George R.
Buchanan, Lieut. Col. A. L. H.


Baird, John Lawrence
Blair, Major Reginald
Campion, Colonel W. R.


Baldwin, Stanley
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Cape, Tom


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Briant, F.
Carr, W. T.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bridgeman, William Clive
Casey, T. W.


Barnston, Major Harry
Briggs, Harold
Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill


Colvin, Brig.-General R.B.
Jodrell, N.P.
Royce, William Stapleton


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Samuel, S. (WandsWorth, Putney)


Cozens- Hardly, Hon. W. H.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Seddon, J. A.


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Kidd, James
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Kiley, James Daniel
Sexton, James


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crowe)
King, Commander Douglas
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Shortt, Rt. Han. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Du Pre, Colonel w. B.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Edge, Captain William
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Elliott, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Lort-Williams, J.
Stanier, Capt. Sir Seville


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon G. F. (Preston)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lunn, William
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sugden, W. H.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, William Lane
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Morden, Col. H. Grant
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Nall, Major Joseph
Townley, Maximilan G.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
heal, Arthur
Tryon, Major George Clement


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Vickers, D.


Glyn, Major R.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wallace, J.


Green J. F. (Leicester
Parker, James
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Grundy, T. W.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Weston, Col. John W.


Hailwood, A.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Perring, William George
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Pratt, John William
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Purchase, H. G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hirst, G. H.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Holmes, J. S.
Renter, J. B.
Younger, Sir George


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rounded, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Lord E. Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


Inskip, T. W. H.




Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted.

CLAUSE 20.—(Roads Advisory Committee.)

(2) The roads committee shall consist of not less than ten members, of whom five shall be representative of highway authorities, appointed after consultation with such authorities, and five shall be representative of the users of road traffic, appointed after consultation with the interests concerned, together with a chairman and secretary.

(3) The chairman and the secretary of the roads committee shall be appointed by the Minister.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "ten," and insert instead thereof the word" eleven."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), after the word "of" ["users of"], insert the words "horse and mechanical."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "together 'with a chairman and secretary," and insert instead thereof the words "and one shall be a representative of Labour appointed after consultation with the interests concerned."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3), after the word "chairman," insert the words" shall be elected by the members of the committee from among their own number."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Advisory Committees.)

(2) Before exercising any of the powers under Sub-section (1) (b) of Section three of this Act, to the exercise of which the owners of the undertaking concerned object, or directing the establishment of new transport services by land or water, the Minister shall refer the matter to a committee selected by him from the said panel.

(4) Any member of the advisory panel, or any committee thereof, or of any other committee established under this Act, for giving advice and assistance to the Minister. shall be considered to be acting entirely in a confidential capacity.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words. "directing the establishment of," and insert instead thereof the word" establishing."—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At end, add the words
in respect of any matter coming to his knowledge in the exercise of his duties under this Act which it would be contrary to the interests of any private individual or trader to make public.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Bill originally said:
Any member of the advisory panel, or any committee thereof, or of any other committee established under this Act for giving advice and assistance to the Minister, shall be considered to be acting entirely in a confidential capacity.
The words sought to be added by the Lords put a limit to that confidential action in matters affecting the interests of any private individual or trader. That is not sufficient. That limit does away with all the good of Clause 6, Sub-section (4), of the Bill. May I just remind the House what is the position of the various committees under this Bill. Take the advisory committee. The members are experts in the first place, and impartial persons with wide commercial and trading experience for the purpose of advising the Minister. In all cases they are to give the honest opinion they are sent for to give as impartial persons and experts. They are to give the Minister the benefit of their honest expert opinion. If anyone reads the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the other House sought to limit this confidential capacity and wanted to insert these words in order that those called to and represented on the advisory committees should know what advice was given by the members to the Minister who had them called there. If the expert gave honest expert advice which did not happen to suit the convenience of certain interests, they would be able to attack him or criticise him outside. That is what we wanted to avoid. It is for the direction of these committees that they are called there, and they have also to assist the Minister. You may get an expert to give advice which is unfavourable to particular interests. If he is to be able to give his full and honest advice, we must have the knowledge that it will be confidential and will not be known outside. And suppose the Minister in the exercise of his honest opinion as an official, on which he is bound to act primarily, knew that what he did was not confidential, what a disadvantage it would be if it were known what his decision was. It is essential that these committees should be absolutely judicial, because they have the right to make inquiries and take evidence, call for documents, and make examinations of various kinds. They are entitled to get evidence and to use their practical knowledge in the advice they give. That should be confidential, because the advice they give should be thoroughly honest and thoroughly just.

Lord R. CECIL: This is a simple matter. I never pretended to be in sympathy, and I do not pretend now to be in sympathy, with a great part of this Bill. I believe it is a thoroughly bad conception of a Bill.
I do not believe in creating little dictators-to do exactly as they like without any check or control, and therefore, of course, I quite recognise that perhaps I am not a very good person to argue this matter, in view of the fact that the House has apparently swallowed wholesale the conception of this Bill put forward by the Government. I quite admit that. But this Amendment appears to me to be a sound one. The whole object of bureaucracy is to enshroud their operations in secrecy as much as possible. The whole guarantee of liberty in this country has always been that we have insisted on publicity. That is the whole of our history. It is a case that we have argued over and over again, and bureaucracy always wants secrecy, but the public outside do gradually more and more insist on publicity.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Publicity in the public interest, and not in private interests.

Lord R. CECIL: Publicity is always in the public interest, or almost always, and this Amendment says there is only one reason why you ought not to prosecute public affairs in public, and that is when in doing so you would inflict an injury on the private interests which have been confided to you, forcibly, by the operations of the Statute. That is the sole exception, and it is a right exception. But beyond that every public matter ought to be made public. That is my conception of the principles upon which we have gone in erecting the whole structure and fabric of liberty in this country. That is the whole question—whether you do desire secrecy in the operations of this Advisory Committee. I do not at all agree with my right hon. Friend's views of what would be the result—that you would have messages sent to the representatives of the interests as to how they were to act. That is not the case at all. In this Bill originally the Government tried to make them subject to the Official Secrets Act, so that anyone who ventured to say a word about it would become liable to imprisonment. They were driven gradually out of that. Even this House of Commons was not prepared to swallow that, even the Labour party would not have that—it was too strong even for them—and gradually the Government had to abandon that, but they are still clinging to the rags of secrecy which remain in this Bill, and the Lords have suggested a further diminution of the secrecy. For my part, I am quite clear
that in this matter the Lords are perfectly right, that a certain amount of publicity in the advice given by these committees can do no harm. It is absurd to say that it can do any more harm than the publication of the Debates in this House, which the bureaucracy fought against, sending people to prison for venturing to publish what had passed in this House. Sooner or later the Member for Cambridge (Sir Eric Geddes) will learn the elements of public liberty.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I confess to have been amazed at finding one with so logical and so statesmanlike a mind as that of my Noble Friend opposite arriving at such conclusions as he has expressed, and arriving at them by such processes as he has explained. He refers to the Official Secrets Act. Does he remember that every Government Department—the Admiralty, the War Office, and every Department of the Civil Service—is under the Official Secrets Act, and that every Civil servant is bound in the public interest not to disclose the transactions of the Department to which he belongs? That provision was made by the Legislature in two Acts, because there are two Acts known as the Official Secrets Acts, at intervals of ten years. Is that provision in the public interest, or is it not? I am sure the Noble Lord will admit that it is in the public interest. It has never been challenged, and I am proud to say that it has never been disgraced by the Civil servants who act under it. With that as our standard, let us inquire into the difference between what was proposed in this House and what is now proposed by the House of Lords. The Clause as it left this House after a Third Reading in which there was not a single dissentient vote in the Division, was to the effect that the advisory panel shall be considered to be acting in an entirely confidential capacity—that is to say, this advisory panel when acting officially in the Ministry shall be considered to be acting in a confidential capacity. That is the same kind of obligation that Civil servants on the full establishment of a Government Department take. What is it that the Lords have put in! What is their change, and what is the reason of their change? Let me read it: "In a confidential capacity," says the House of Commons, and then the Lords add: "In respect of any matter
coming to his knowledge in the exercise of his duties under this Act which it would be contrary to the interests.—"The interests of whom? Of the public? Of the Ministry? Oh no! Not at all. Contrary "to the interests of any private individual or trader to make public." Here is a House of Commons providing that the members of the advisory committee shall be confidential in the public interest, and there is the House of Lords suggesting that the public interest is not to be safeguarded, but that if the private interests of traders are affected, then the seal of confidence is-broken, though the members of the advisory committee may speak in public of what has happened in the course of their own work officially. I do not think this House need consider that matter for many moments longer. I sincerely hope that the House will not agree to this suggestion in the interests of the private trader.

Mr. STEVENS: I think the Noble Lord was away when the Second Reading of this Bill was under consideration, engaged upon higher duties in Paris, and I think it is due to him to explain that we shall have the undertaking of the Government running side by side with the Select Committee on Transport, and for that reason I think he will see that it is better that we should have the confidential character of the Amendment of the House of Commons rather than the Amendment that is brought down to us. We are to have a reconstitution of the Select Committee on Transport, and the Minister during those two years is to consider the whole question with the assistance of the Select Committee, so that these Committees will be able in a confidential manner to advise not only the Minister but also the Select Committee which is working side by side with the Ministry. With that explanation I hope that the Amendment as brought from the Lords will not be accepted.

CLAUSE 23.—(Staff and Remuneration.)

(2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Minister an annual salary not exceeding live thousand pounds, and to one of the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry an annual salary not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds, and to the other secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine."

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "one of the Parliamentary Secretaries," and insert instead thereof the words "Parliamentary Secretary."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Seal, Style and Acts of Minister.)

(1) The Minister may sue and be sued in respect of matters, whether relating to contract, tort, or otherwise arising in connection with his office, by the name of the Minister of Ways and Communications, and may for all purposes be described by that name and shall be responsible for the acts and defaults of the officers and servants and agents of the Ministry in like manner and to the like extent as if they were his servants, and costs may be awarded to or against the Minister.

(3) For the purpose of acquiring and holding land the Minister for the time being shall be a corporation sole by name of the Minister of Ways and Communications and all land vested in the Minister shall be held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of the Ministry of Ways and Communications.

(5) Sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section eleven, and Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section twelve of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister and the Ministry of Ways and Communications and to the office of Minister of Ways and Communications in like manner as they apply to the Ministers and Ministries mentioned in those Sections.

Lords Amendments:|

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Ways and Communications," and insert instead thereof the word "Transport."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "Ways and Communications," and insert instead thereof the word "Transport."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "Ways and Communications," and insert instead thereof the word "Transport."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Ability of Minister and Secrtaries to Sit in Parliament.)

(1) The office of Minister of Ways and Communications, or of the secretary in the Ministry of Ways and Communications, shall not render the holder thereof incapable of being; elected to or sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Ways and Communications," and insert instead thereof the word "Transport."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word ''the" ["or of the secretary."]—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council,)

Before any Order in Council under this Act is made notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of a draft of the Order can be obtained shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazette as the case may require and in such other manner as the Minister thinks best adapted for ensuring publicity.

Lords Amendment:

At end, add
(2) An Order in Council under this Act may be altered or revoked by a subsequent Order.
—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 26, insert

CLAUSE C.—(Provision as to Orders in Council Relating to the Acquisition of Lund and the. Construction of Works.)

(1) The Minister may make Rules in relation to matters preliminary to the making of Orders and Orders in Council under this Act which authorise the acquisition of land or easements, or the breaking up of loads and the construction of works, including the publication of notices and advertisements, and the deposit of plans and sections and books of reference to those plans, and the manner in which and the time within which representations or objections are to be made, and to the holding of local inquiries.

Any Rules so made shall be laid before Parliament as soon as they are made and shall have the same effect as if enacted in this Act Provided that if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Rules are so laid praying that any such Rule may be annulled, His Majesty may annul the Rule, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there under.

(2)The rules of procedure set out in the Second Schedule to this Act shall apply to the making of any Order under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act and of any draft of an Order in Council to be submitted to Parliament under Section nine of this Act.

(3)The Minister, on publication of notice of a proposal to make an Order under paragraph (d)of Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act shall, except as hereinafter provided, send to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons a copy of the draft Order, and if within fourteen days of the receipt of the copy if Parliament is then sitting or within one month thereof if Parliament is not then sitting, either such Chairman reports to the Minister that he is of opinion that the proposals of the draft Order are of such a character or magnitude that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by such Order as aforesaid the Minister shall not make the Order, but in that case notices published and served, and deposits made for the purpose of the proposed Order shall, subject to Standing Order, be held to have been published, served and made for a Private Bill applying for similar powers.

Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any Order with respect to which the Minister certifies that the acquisition of the land or easements authorised to be acquired there under and the works authorised to be constructed there under do not involve an estimated expenditure exceeding half a million pounds, nor to any Order of any class which may be exempted from the provisions of this Sub-section by Rules made by the said chairmen."

Lords Amendment read a second time.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words
to be dealt with by private Bill and not by such Order as aforesaid, the Minister shall not make the Order, but in that case notices published and served, and deposits made for the purpose of the proposed Order shall, subject to Standing Order, be held to have been published, served and made for a private Bill applying for similar powers,
and to insert instead thereof the words
not to be proceeded with without the authority of parliament, the Minister shall not make the Order unless or until the draft Order has been approved by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.
The effect of that would be that if either the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Chairman of Committees is of opinion that the draft orders are of a character or magnitude that they ought not to be proceeded with without the assent of Parliament, then the Minister shall not make the Draft Order without a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. The reason for the change is that the Lords have provided that it shall proceed by Private Bill. That is a very long and cumbersome procedure. The provisions of this Bill are for two years, and if a proposed Order of the Minister had to proceed by way of Private Bill it would mean that the whole two years would be gone before the Bill was through, whereas if it proceeds by Resolution of Parliament Parliament still retains control and the Order can be passed in time for the Ministry to carry it out within the two years.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not rise to object, but I should like to know what the effect is. I quite sympathise, in the circumstances, with the objection to Private Bill procedure. I know it is very lengthy, but, on the other hand, I think—at any rate I hope—the Home Secretary will agree with me that some kind of inquiry is the important part of these things. A mere Resolution of the two Houses will not be of any particular value. If there is to be any protection in the big cases with which this Amendment deals, it is essential there should be some kind of public inquiry into them. I do not know whether
the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that that inquiry will take place by means of Select Committees, but if ho would explain I should be much obliged to him.

Mr. SHORTT: What the Government have in their mind is that if when the Resolution comes before the House it is seen that the question is of such magnitude or complexity that it requires some sort of investigation, the House will set up a Select Committee which will make the inquiry.

Mr. STEVENS: Here again it will have an opportunity of being considered by the Select Committee which the Government have undertaken to reappoint.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words ''half a ["half a million pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."
The reason for this Amendment is that this money is not like the money that may be advanced which is public money, or the money which can be spent on new ventures which is public money. This is not necessarily public money at all, but money which can be expended by the railway companies themselves, but on purposes which require the Order of the Minister. In many cases the work which will have to be done is work that would not require much investigation. For instance, taking electricity along the line of a railway, it might be necessary in order to carry out that work to give instructions to take a piece of land adjoining the railway for a generating station, with, perhaps, a small way leave across a field. in that case the work would cost at least a million, but the proportion necessary under the Order would not be great. In several cases of that kind, however, a million is not by any means too much, and therefore I hope the House will accept that Amendment. It is not public money at all, but is really the railway companies' own money.

Lord R. CECIL: Economy is just as important in the case of a railway company's money as in the case of State money, and it is just as important that there should be checks on recklessness and extravagance with railway money as on the expenditure of public money. Indeed, there is really no distinction, as the railways are now under the control of the State. I do not follow the distinction, and I very much regret it.

Sir E. GEDDES: The capital of the railways, which is what is involved in such a question as this, has never been under the control of the Government. Their finances have always been entirely in their own hands.

Lord R. CECIL: I hear my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remark that it could have been done without coming to Parliament. But I am perhaps a little more familiar with the procedure in these matters than he is, and I know that they could not have done that without coming to Parliament. They came to Parliament almost every year for further money powers in order to carry out works of this magnitude. They would, therefore, have had to come and have the matter properly investigated. But that is not the point. It is not what might have been done before the War, but what we ought to do now. In my view it is a great pity that this House, which talks so freely about economy in the abstract and in general, is so reluctant to take any active step to enforce economy. Before any expenditure is made, there ought to be proper checks, so that there shall be no reckless extravagance. I think that the half-million is a much better limit, and I regret that the Government have asked the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment. We are taking a view which is less enlightened than the view taken in the other House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Short Title and Interpretation.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Ways and Communications Act, 1919.

(2). In this Act the expression "Government Department "includes any Government or other Public Department and any Minister of the Crown acting as the head of a Government Department, and for the purposes of this Act the Road Board and the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland and the Commissioners of the Caledonian Canal and the Commissioners of the Conservancy of the River Mersey shall be deemed to be Government Departments, and the expression "tramway" includes a trackless trolley vehicle system, and the expression "undertaking" includes any services carried on a s ancillary to the principal business of the undertaking, and the expression "transport services by water" shall not include any transport service by sea other than such as is, or could under their existing statutory powers, or any extension thereof which may hereafter be authorised by Parliament, be established by the owners of any undertaking of which the Minister is for the time being in possession under this Act, and where an undertaking is leased to or worked by a company or person
other than. the owners, the expression "the owners of an undertaking" shall include that company or person, except where such an interpretation is inconsistent with the terms of the lease or working agreement, and except for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to payments to be made to or by the owners of an undertaking in respect of any reduction or enhancement of the value of the undertaking.

(3) Any Order in Council under this Act may be altered or revoked by a subsequent Order.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Ways and Communications," and insert instead thereof the word "Transport."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), after the word "Act" ["In this Act the expression"], insert the words "unless the context otherwise requires."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "or other public" ["includes any Government or other public Department"].—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), after the word "Ireland" ["Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland"], insert the words "the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland and the Congested Districts Board for Ireland."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), after the word "system" ["trackless trolley vehicle system"], insert the words "and the expression easement includes any right in or over land."—Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section (3).—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

Insert new Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.

1.—(1) Before any Order under Section 3 (1) (d) of this Act is made or any draft Order in. Council under Section (d)of this Act is submitted to Parliament notice shall be published in such manner as the Minister may think best adapted for informing persons affected of the proposal to make the Order or Order in Council and of the plate or places where copies of the draft Order or Order in Council may be obtained and of the place or places where plans of any lands (including easements) proposed to be compulsorily acquired and plans and sections of any works proposed to be constructed and books of reference to those plans may be inspected and of the time (which shall be not less than twenty-one days) within which any objection made with respect to the draft by or on behalf of persons affected must be sent to the Minister.

(2) Every objection must be in writing, and state:

(a) The specific grounds of objection; and
(b)The omissions, additions, or modifications asked for.

(3)The Minister shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any person being in the
case of a draft Order a person affected, and in the case of a draft Order in Council a person whose property will be injuriously affected by reason of the acquisition of the land or the construction of the proposed works, if the objection is sent to the Minister within the required time and may if thought fit amend the draft, and shall then cause the amended draft to be dealt with in like manner as an original draft.

(4) Where the Minister does not amend or withdraw a draft to which any objection has been made then (unless the objection either is withdrawn or appears to him to be frivolous) he shall before making the Order or submitting the draft Order in Council to Parliament direct an inquiry to be held in the manner hereinafter provided, and may after considering the report of the person who held the inquiry, make the Order or submit the draft Order in Council to Parliament either without modification or subject to such modification as he may think fit, or may refuse to make the Order or submit the draft Order in Council to Parliament.

2.—(1) The Minister may appoint a competent and impartial person to hold an inquiry with regard to any draft and to report to him thereon.

(2) The inquiry shall be held in public, and any person who being entitled to do so has duly made an objection, may appear at the inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent.

(3) The witnesses on the inquiry may if the person holding it thinks fit be examined on oath.

(4) Subject as aforesaid, the inquiry and all proceedings preliminary and incidental thereto shall be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Minister.

(5) The fee to be paid to the person holding the inquiry shall be such as the Minister may direct.

—Agreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of,—Mr. Shortt, Sir Eric Geddes, Mr. Acland, Mr. Lunn, and Captain FitzRoy.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Shortt.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords-.—[Mr. Shortt.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Thirty-six minutes after Seven o'clock a.m., 14th August.